Get Rich Menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates a read operation ('get') but does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, error responses, or any other edge cases. It is not contradictory, but adds little beyond the obvious.

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 zero filler. It conveys the essential action and selector immediately.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what to do and what the input is. Since there is no output schema, the phrase 'get a rich menu' implies the return value. It does not mention error handling, but that is not critical for a simple read.

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?

The input schema already describes the richMenuId parameter fully (100% coverage). The description's 'by its ID' repeats the schema's description without adding syntax, format, or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get), a specific resource (rich menu), and the key selector (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_rich_menus and create_rich_menu, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool vs list_rich_menus. The usage is implied from the name and the 'by ID' qualifier, but there is no explicit guidance about when this tool is appropriate versus other rich menu tools.

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