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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait that it 'Runs nothing,' which is a significant side-effect disclaimer. However, it does not explain what 'route' and 'blockers' mean, nor does it mention whether any permissions are needed or if the tool is read-only beyond the 'Runs nothing' note. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 ('List VBA modules and runnable macros') and then adds the key behavioral note ('Runs nothing'). Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the scope, and that it has no side effects. It does not detail the output format or elaborate on 'route' and 'blockers,' but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly. It could add a bit more about the returned data, but it is not a major gap.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already shows.

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: 'List VBA modules and runnable macros (entry points) in this workbook with their route and blockers.' It specifies the verb (List), the resource (VBA modules and macros), and the scope (this workbook). It also adds 'Runs nothing,' which is a critical differentiator from siblings like macro_plan or macro_read_source, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 safe usage by noting 'Runs nothing,' which suggests it's for inspection rather than execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or provide exclusions. The context is somewhat implied but not explicit, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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