ui_menus

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it names the underlying mechanism per platform, states that recursion is "bounded," and reassures that leaf commands are not invoked, which is valuable for a menu-walking tool. It does not reconcile that reassuring read-oriented framing with the annotation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so an agent cannot tell why a discovery call is flagged destructive or what state ExpandCollapse may change.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and platform detail following; nothing is padded. The density is high (UIA, ExpandCollapse, leaf commands are specialized jargon) but each clause carries information.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mechanism but not the contract: it never characterizes the returned menu structure, how deep the default traversal goes, or what happens on platforms where menus are only partially exposed. Adequate to attempt a call, thin for interpreting the result.

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% for both parameters, so the description bears the full burden and largely fails it. "Bounded UIA ExpandCollapse" gestures at the existence of a traversal limit but never explains what depth means, that it defaults to 6 with a max of 12, or what sessionId must identify.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Discover real menus and nested entries," which tells an agent exactly what it retrieves. The three platform-specific clauses (Electron Menu API, native UIA ExpandCollapse, web exposed menu roles) further pin down the scope. It does not, however, differentiate this from the sibling ui_snapshot, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

"Discover real menus" strongly implies the use case, so the guidance is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no reference to alternatives such as ui_snapshot or ui_action for navigating the discovered menus, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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