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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields: what a macro actually is ('fixed list of taps, swipes and typing... replayed exactly, no AI'), the ownership filter, and the precedence rule that a user's macro shadows a same-named system macro.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place, with the core action and scope front-loaded in the first sentence. It is information-dense but not padded; the macro definition and precedence rule are the only slightly tangential asides.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: the ownership scoping, the meaning of a macro, and how to use the results downstream. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent, though return ordering/formatting is unspecified.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully goes further by explaining how the returned fields map onto run-macro-tool's inputs (`name`→`workflow`, `parameters`→`params`), clarifying the meaning of the output for the caller.

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?

Specific verb (list) + resource (recorded macros) plus precise scope: only macros the authenticated user can run, split into `owner: "you"` and `owner: "system"`. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling run-macro-tool by framing itself as the discovery step that feeds it.

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?

Explicitly ties itself to run-macro-tool ('the recorded macros the authenticated user can run with run-macro-tool') and explains how to consume the output (pass `name` as `workflow`, fill `params`). It gives clear context but does not enumerate when NOT to use it, though there is no competing list sibling.

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