toast_get_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the response includes menu groups and items, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling for invalid menuGuid, or whether restaurantGuid is needed for scoping. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and key output scope efficiently.

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 description is adequate for a simple 'get by GUID' operation, but the lack of output schema and annotations means more context would help. It does not clarify the optional restaurantGuid parameter, the structure of the returned groups and items, or how this tool relates to the many menu-related siblings.

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 provides no meaningful parameter guidance. menuGuid is only identifiable by name, and restaurantGuid is completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('a specific menu'), and the scope ('including all groups and items'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like toast_list_menus and from more granular tools like toast_get_menu_item.

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 wording implies this tool is for fetching the full detail of one known menu, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as toast_list_menus, toast_get_menu_item, or toast_list_menu_groups. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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