menu

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description is not the sole source of the safety profile. It still adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: it works on background apps, and it has dual list-vs-click behavior. It stops short of warning what a click may destroy or how failures surface.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core usage and followed by the edge-case rules and the localization quirk. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description explains the list-vs-click dual return behavior and background-app support, which covers most of what an agent needs. It omits what happens on a failed path lookup or the exact format of listed menu items, a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% (the path array has no schema description), and the description fully compensates by explaining path as an ordered list of menu names, with empty/terminal-menu behavior and the localization/ellipsis matching rule. The app parameter is already documented in the schema, so this goes beyond the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (an app's menu bar) and the exact mechanism (addressing items by name paths like ["File", "Save…"]), which clearly separates it from siblings such as click, key, and click_element. One sentence tells the agent what the tool operates on and how.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a precise rule for the tool's two modes (a path ending on a menu or empty lists items; ending on an item clicks it), which is real operating guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like click_element or key shortcuts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.