get_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the menu data returns, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with parameter context. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal agent comprehension.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what the return value contains (menu items with prices? descriptions? images?), how data is structured, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns complex menu data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional parameter with its description and available values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Can return all categories or a specific category', which reinforces the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states.

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 purpose: 'Get the Shake Shack menu' specifies the verb (get) and resource (menu). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'find_locations' or 'get_nutrition_info', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_menu' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Can return all categories or a specific category', which suggests when to use the optional parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_menu' or 'get_featured_items', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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