run_macro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully explains that a macro is a chain of tools, which accounts for the non-read-only flag while promising no destruction. It does not say what happens when the name is unknown, whether execution stops on a failing step, or how results are reported back.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and waste nothing. The second sentence is genuinely informative rather than filler, though the config-path detail is more context than an agent typically needs to make the call.

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 tool that fans out into an arbitrary chain of other tools with no output schema, the description should describe the shape of the result and error behavior on a bad or partially failing macro. It covers what a macro is and where it lives but leaves the execution semantics opaque.

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 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented as 'Macro name to run'. The description adds the useful fact that names resolve against ~/.config/hypr/macros.json, but supplies no naming format or case-sensitivity detail beyond that. 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 and resource ('Run a named macro') and clarifies that a macro is a predefined chain of tools, which separates it from the sibling list_macros/get_macro/create_macro/delete_macro set by verb alone. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus calling the underlying tools directly, and no mention that a macro name must first be discovered via list_macros or get_macro. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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