run_macro

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the LLM cannot inspect intermediate results, all steps run to completion or first error, sleep has a max of 10000ms, stop_on_error defaults true, max 50 steps, and screenshots incur token cost. This fully compensates for missing 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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Details, Prefer, Caveats, Examples) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, and side effects adequately. However, it does not explicitly state the shape of the return value (e.g., array of results or single result), which would improve completeness. Otherwise, it is thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the sleep pseudo-step format, that params should match direct tool calls, and the optional 'include' parameter for response shaping. It does not add syntax details for each tool's params, but that would be excessive.

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 it 'executes multiple tools sequentially in one MCP call' to reduce latency, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform single actions. The verb 'execute' and resource 'multiple tools' are specific, and the contrast with individual tools is evident.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer: Use for predictable fixed sequences' and 'Do not use for conditional logic — return to the LLM between branches'. Also advises splitting macros at points of potential failure. Examples illustrate appropriate use cases.

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