调用 ENVI Classic 菜单

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints. The description adds that it uses native WM_COMMAND and does not depend on pixel coordinates, but it does not disclose requirements like an active session, potential dialogs, or error behavior. This is meaningful but incomplete for a tool that sends UI commands.

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 one concrete example. Every word contributes meaning, and the key differentiator (not pixel-based) is included. No filler.

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 simple invocation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and path format. However, it omits prerequisites like having a running session and does not mention that valid paths can be obtained via sibling tools like list_menu_items. Adequate but with evident gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains menu_path well with a clear example showing an array of strings. However, session_id is not explained at all, and no syntax or format details are given beyond the example. Partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'invoke native WM_COMMAND' by full menu name path. It clearly distinguishes this from pixel-based clicking and from sibling tools like list_menu_items by focusing on invocation. The example path makes the purpose concrete.

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 context is clear: use this to trigger a menu command by its full path. It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, but the provided example and the contrast with pixel-based methods give a clear sense of when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit 'use this when' wording but is more than merely implied.

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