列出 ENVI Classic 原生菜单

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing pagination behavior and the ability to filter results with filter_text. It also notes that the menus are 'real' Win32 menus, which clarifies the data source. 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose, followed by a useful note about filtering. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The output schema likely covers return values, so the description need not explain them. The description covers pagination, filtering, and the resource type. It does not mention session requirements, but that is implied by the required session_id parameter and presence of sibling session-management tools.

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 compensates by explicitly explaining filter_text and implying limit/offset through '分页返回' (paginated return). Session_id is not described, but it is a common session context. This adds meaningful value over the bare schema.

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 function: it returns paginated real Win32 menu paths and command IDs from the ENVI Classic main window. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'envi_classic_invoke_menu', which invokes menus, and 'envi_classic_list_windows', which lists windows.

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 implies usage through pagination and filter_text but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct references to sibling tools or conditions where this tool is preferred over others.

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