object_context_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states that support is conditional ('when supported'). It does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether the object must be focused/selected, or what makes a context menu unsupported.

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 entire definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and resource come first and the conditional caveat is appended. Every part earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters, but the description provides no return-value shape, no selection criteria, and no success/failure semantics. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly beyond guessing the object identifiers.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the four string parameters (name, type, title, session_id). There is no indication of which parameters identify the 'found UI object', which are required for lookup, or how they interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('context menu for a found UI object'), and includes a conditional qualifier ('when supported') that alerts the agent to limited availability. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as object_command_panel or field_dropdown_items, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'for a found UI object, when supported' implies the tool is meant after object lookup and only when context menus exist, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer routing from the resource phrase.

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