get_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the full nested item structure, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely), any potential side effects, or error conditions (e.g., handle not found). The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral detail (full nested item structure). Every word 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?

For a simple get-by-identifier tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the parameter (handle) and the return content (full nested item structure). Minor missing details: whether the tool returns null or an error if the menu is not found, and that the operation is read-only. However, given the simplicity, it is sufficiently informative.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a description for 'handle'. The tool description adds 'by its handle' which essentially reiterates the schema. No additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a navigation menu by its handle and includes the full nested item structure. This distinguishes it from list_menus (which lists all menus) and create/update/delete_menu. The verb 'get' plus resource 'menu' and qualifier 'by its handle' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_menus or other get tools. The description implies usage when a specific menu handle is known and the full nested structure is needed, but it does not provide direct context or exclusions. The presence of sibling tools like list_menus implies this is for single menu retrieval, but the description does not state it.

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