get_macros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth prerequisite and describes the returned structure (message content plus action targets), and "Every macro" implies an unfiltered full result set. It stops short of covering size/pagination behavior or rate limits for what is clearly a bulky payload, and the existence of a "compact" sibling is the only hint about cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and payload shape, then alternatives — efficient and well ordered. The trailing "GET /api/v1/macros" and "Tags: Macros" lines are transport metadata that add no selection value for an agent.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what comes back (message content, actions with `display_value`) and who may call it. Missing only secondary details such as result ordering or any server-side limits on the list size.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description adds nothing parameter-related, which is the correct baseline of 4. The noted schema coverage of 100% is trivially true for an empty object schema.

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 (Get) and resource (Macros) and then characterizes the payload precisely: every macro with message content plus actions, where each action carries `display_value` naming the team/agent/status/priority it targets. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from `get_macros_compact` and `search_macros`, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent: use `search_macros` to list only macros the caller may apply, and `get_macros_compact` for a list without message content. It also states the access condition ("Any authenticated agent"). The only gap is it never says when this heavy full-content variant is the wrong default.

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