Find Menu Path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about the data source ('JMP's own menu reference' and 'authoritative rather than scraped'), but it does not disclose edge cases, no-result behavior, or how the task string is matched. The output schema may cover the return shape, but behavioral details remain thin.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a valuable authority qualifier without fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, in a crowded sibling set, the lack of explicit routing guidance (when to choose find_menu_path over search_jmp_docs or browse_jmp_toc) leaves an important gap. The core invocation parameters and purpose are still clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter details. The description's 'feature' maps naturally to the required task parameter, but it adds no extra meaning about k or task phrasing 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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('where a feature lives in JMP's menus'), which makes the tool's scope immediately recognizable. This distinguishes it from general documentation/search siblings like search_jmp_docs or get_jmp_page.

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 implies the tool is for menu-location questions, but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings such as search_jmp_docs, whats_this, or browse_jmp_toc. There is no clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond the purpose phrase.

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