Get menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on the selected store menu and returns categories with item counts or item details including linkId, price, and whether specs are required. It does not mention caching/refresh behavior, but the schema covers that parameter.

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 front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence gives the primary purpose and modes, and the second adds item-level detail. The bilingual duplication is purposeful for locale, though it is slightly repetitive rather than maximally concise.

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 read-only tool with four optional parameters, full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description supplies the key return shape: categories with item counts or category items with linkId, price, and spec requirement. Minor omissions around pagination and behavior when no store is selected are acceptable because the schema and annotations cover surrounding context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the category-based retrieval mode and returned item fields, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents for limit, refresh, category, and includeItems.

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 ("List") and resource ("selected store menu"), and distinguishes two retrieval modes: categories with counts vs. items in one category. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_menu or get_item, so it falls 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?

The two modes imply when to use the tool: omit category for categories, provide category for items. However, it does not say when to use this instead of search_menu/get_item, nor does it explicitly state the prerequisite of selecting a store first. Usage is only implied.

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