Get parameter menu values

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses valuable behavioral traits: values come live from the running build and are authoritative, dynamic menus are included, empty menuNames means not-populated-yet (not absence), requires TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1, and falls back to a bundled catalog with a stale-catalog warning. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the primary function, then provides dense but necessary context: usage scenario, authoritative source, empty-menu interpretation, and environment requirement. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only menu inspection tool. It explains what is returned, how to interpret results, environment prerequisites, fallback behavior, and dynamic menu nuances. With an output schema and annotations present, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input parameters (path, keys, menu_only) are already well documented. The description focuses on output semantics (menuNames, menuLabels, current) and behavior rather than adding new meaning to the input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: live-fetch menu option values, labels, and current selection for each menu parameter of a node. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource ('menu parameter of a node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_td_node_parameters which cover all parameters generically.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this before setting a Menu / StrMenu parameter so you pick a valid option instead of guessing.' This is clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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