geck_menu_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Select a GECK menu path' and gives format examples; it does not mention whether this opens dialogs, triggers side effects, requires GECK focus, or what happens on failure.

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 a single sentence with two illustrative examples and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and gives immediately usable input formats.

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 UI automation tool with four parameters and no annotations, this description is too thin. It lacks usage context, behavioral expectations, and parameter details, even though an output schema exists; selecting a menu path often has important state and timing implications.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially explains menu_path with format examples, but handle, backend, and title_regex remain undocumented and their purpose is not inferable from the description.

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 action: selecting a GECK menu path, with concrete examples ('File->Data...' or ['File', 'Save']). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic input/click tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like geck_send_keys, geck_click_control, or geck_open_data_dialog. The examples imply the input format but do not describe the intended scenario or list any exclusions.

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