open_menu

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the default server and selector examples. It does not describe return format, error handling, or any network-related behavior, leaving significant gaps for a network tool.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence about the server's historical status is extra context but not wasteful, keeping the overall structure tight.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no required fields, the description provides enough context to get started: what it does, default server, and example selectors. It lacks details on edge cases or output specifics, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning, repeating selector examples already in the schema, though it does provide context about the default server.

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 opens a Gopher menu and lists its items, with specific examples of selectors. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_textfile or search_veronica, but the resource (menu/directory) is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: to browse a Gopher menu, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over read_textfile or search_veronica, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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