Kasra Get User Menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation via 'get' and scopes the response to menus/subsystems, but it does not explicitly state read-only guarantees, authentication needs, or side-effect behavior beyond the verb.

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 two short sentences (Persian and English) with no extraneous content. The bilingual repetition is mildly redundant, but overall it is compact and readable.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and requires no parameters, so the core call is invocable without risk. However, the unexplained 'reason' parameter and lack of usage/context guidance leave a real but minor gap.

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?

The input schema contains a single optional 'reason' parameter with no schema description, and the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage and no prose compensation, an agent has no information about what value to supply or why.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('complete menu structure and subsystems available to the user'), so the tool's subject is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like kasra_get_desktop_shortcuts, but the menu/subsystem object is clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings, nor about prerequisites such as authentication or user context. The only usage signal is implied by the description itself: fetch the current user's menu structure.

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