Menu Link List

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination (despite page_limit/page_offset defaults), ordering, or the shape/limits of results.

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 zero filler; the scoping clause is placed sensibly. It is arguably under-sized for a 4-parameter tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 needn't be described, but with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and an opaque 'filters' parameter, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this confidently.

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 compensate and does not. It alludes to the menu filter (menu_id), but the opaque 'filters' object, page_limit, and page_offset are left with no meaning beyond their bare type/default.

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+resource ('List menu links') with a scoping condition, which is enough to separate it from menu_link_get/create/update/delete. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Optionally filtered by menu' implies the scoping use case and points loosely at the menu_id parameter, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over menu_get or menu_link_get, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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