app_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the Accessibility permission requirement, that results are untrusted data, and the error-handling behavior that lists available items. It does not explicitly discuss side effects of 'click' (e.g., whether it mutates app state), but the term 'click' implies activation and the description covers key prerequisites and data trust.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, retry guidance, and permission/data warnings. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: permission requirements, localization, error recovery, and data trust. It does not explicitly describe the structure of the returned list (e.g., whether it's an array of strings), but the tool's simplicity and the retry guidance make it largely self-explanatory. A slight gap remains on the exact return format for list actions.

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?

The input schema already describes each parameter with high coverage (100%), including the action enum and the menu_path example. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it does not elevate the parameter understanding. 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 dual function: listing an application's menus or clicking a menu item by path, with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_app or get_browser_tabs, which deal with other UI elements. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use, including the retry strategy based on error output ('prefer retrying on that list over guessing') and a warning about localized menu names. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for typical usage.

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