Menu Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read via the word 'Get'; it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the menu ID does not exist, or what 'configuration' encompasses (links, settings, hierarchy).

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 tight sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. It is concise but arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature is broadly implied. However, the undocumented include parameter and absent usage routing leave real gaps for an agent that must choose among menu_list, menu_get, and menu_link_get.

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%, so the description must explain parameters and largely does not. 'By ID' loosely maps to menu_id, but the include parameter is left completely opaque in both schema and description, leaving the caller guessing at its format and purpose.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single menu configuration) with a scoping qualifier (by ID) that implicitly distinguishes it from menu_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/plural contrast is clear enough to select correctly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance beyond 'by ID'. It never mentions menu_list (for enumerating menus) or menu_link_get (for reading a menu's links), so the agent must infer routing from names alone. No prerequisites or error conditions are stated.

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