get_macro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description 'Get' is consistent with this. It does not add extra context such as return format or error behavior, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, the bar is lower. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, fully front-loaded. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately minimal.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It lacks return format details, but with no output schema and a low-complexity operation, that is not a critical gap. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what input it needs.

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%: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Macro ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond that. Per rubric, baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a specific macro by ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (macro), and the scope (specific by ID). It distinguishes from list_macros which would return multiple, and from create/update/delete which have different verbs. No ambiguity.

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 use when you have a known macro ID and need its details, as opposed to list_macros when you don't. However, there is no explicit statement of alternatives or when-not-to-use. The context is clear but the exclusion is only implicit.

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