List macros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the 'AI may run them now' permission field and the includeCommand behavior, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, sorting, or whether the command text is truncated.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key output fields. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could be slightly clearer about the optional nature of includeCommand.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention whether the result is paginated, how many macros are returned, or what the output structure looks like, which an agent might need to know for large worlds.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining that includeCommand shows the command text and that nameContains is case-insensitive, but this mostly mirrors the schema descriptions.

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 lists macros and specifies the fields returned (type, folder, author, AI-run permission, optional command text). It distinguishes itself from create-macro and execute-macro siblings by focusing on listing, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 this is for reading/listing macros rather than creating or executing them, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like list-documents or list-compendiums, nor does it mention any filtering alternatives.

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