get_macros_compact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the `has_message_content` flag, the newest-updated-first ordering, the page_size=0/absent returns-everything behavior, and the `macros:manage` permission requirement. It stops short of describing the return shape or any rate/volume limits.

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 substance is front-loaded and dense — scope, flag, sort, pagination and permission in a few clauses. It is slightly padded by the redundant title echo 'Get Macros Compact' and the trailing 'GET /api/v1/macros/compact' / 'Tags: Macros' boilerplate.

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 three-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers the operationally risky bits: permission requirement, default ordering, and the unbounded-result mode when page_size is 0. What comes back per macro is not described, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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 q, page and page_size are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the page_size=0 semantics and adds the default sort order, but contributes no new parameter meaning beyond the 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 and resource ('Get Macros Compact') plus concrete scope: macros without message content, filtered by name, newest update first. It implies a content-bearing sibling via 'without their message content' but never names get_macros or search_macros, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'macros without their message content' suggests picking this over a full-content variant when the body isn't needed. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_macros / search_macros / get_macro.

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