Audit user's LINE Rich Menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the priority chain (per-user override, OA Manager vs API-built menus) and listing the return fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the key diagnostic question and then lists the return fields in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return structure adequately. It addresses purpose, usage context, and behavioral logic. Minor gaps: error cases or prerequisites (like OA token) are not mentioned, but overall it's sufficient for a read-only diagnosis tool.

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 has 2 parameters: oa (string, not required, no description) and user_id (required, minLength, described). Schema coverage is 50%. The description mentions passing user_id and explains its role, partially compensating for the missing oa description. However, oa remains unexplained, limiting parameter clarity.

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's purpose as diagnosing why a user sees a specific menu. It specifies the verb 'Diagnose', the resource 'rich-menu priority chain', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like line_link_rich_menu and line_set_default_rich_menu by focusing on auditing/debugging.

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 explains when to use the tool via the diagnostic question 'why is user X seeing menu Y?' and mentions the priority chain logic. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its diagnostic role.

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