Fire Eos Macro

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

The description simply says 'Run a saved macro' and adds no information about side effects, execution timing, or potential consequences. Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, but the description does not elaborate on what firing a macro might do (e.g., changing show data). It adds no behavioral context beyond the 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 extremely concise, with a clear main sentence and a bulleted argument list. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is ideal for quick parsing by 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 destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens when the macro is fired, whether the operation is synchronous, what errors might occur, or how the result is reported. The annotations give a hint of destructiveness but the description does not prepare the agent for the broader impact on the lighting state.

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 description lists 'macro_number (number): Macro to fire,' which is nearly tautological with the parameter name. The schema already defines the integer type and bounds (1-127). With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only a minimal label and does not explain how the number maps to a saved macro or what 'fire' entails.

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 action: 'Run a saved macro by number (1-127).' The verb 'run' and resource 'saved macro' are specific, and the number range adds precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like eos_fire_cue and eos_go, which target different objects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., macro must exist), and no context such as whether this should be used for command-line triggers or manual actions. It is a bare instruction without usage context.

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