run_macro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the preview/confirmation workflow and parameter override capability, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, potential side effects on the machine, or error handling for invalid macros.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the confirmation workflow and parameter behavior. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool that executes potentially complex machine operations with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic workflow but doesn't address safety considerations, error conditions, or what the preview shows. Given the context of machine control tools and potential for destructive operations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that parameters can override defaults, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter format, validation, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Execute a saved macro') and resource ('macro'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_macro' or 'delete_macro' by focusing on execution rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'run_gcode_program' or 'run_sd_file' which are also execution tools.

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 clear context about the two-step process ('Shows preview first; set confirm=true to run'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other execution tools like 'run_gcode_program' or 'run_sd_file', nor does it mention any prerequisites like requiring a saved macro to exist.

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