get_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns menu items with specific attributes and supports optional filtering, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior for large menus.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and detailed output, the second adds the optional filtering capability. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, output details, and filtering. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more explicit return format clarification, though the listed attributes provide good guidance.

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 documents the single optional parameter with its description and allowed values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Optionally filter by category' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Browse') and resource ('Wingstop menu'), with detailed output content listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_item' or 'create_order' by being a read-only browsing operation rather than transactional.

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 when to use the tool ('Browse the Wingstop menu') and includes an optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from transactional tools.

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