get_chat_menu_button

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool works 'for a chat or default,' implying that chat_id is optional and a default is returned when omitted. This is useful and non-contradictory.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

This is a simple getter with one optional parameter and rich annotations. The description is sufficient to understand the core function, though it does not describe the return format. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return value could be helpful, but it is not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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?

There is only one parameter (chat_id) with no schema description, and the description covers 0% of schema details. However, the phrase 'for a chat or default' adds meaning by signaling that chat_id is optional and that omitting it returns the default menu button. This compensates for the schema's lack of 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 tool 'Get the current menu button for a chat or default.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('menu button'), and clarifies the scope ('chat or default'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_chat_menu_button and get_chat.

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 usage for retrieving the menu button, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no reference to set_chat_menu_button or other related tools, so guidance relies on the verb 'Get' and the tool name.

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