run_macro

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions executing a CLI macro and returning output or an error. It does not warn that macros can have arbitrary side effects on notes or the vault, which is a significant transparency gap for an execution tool.

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 compact and efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place and nothing is redundant or verbose.

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?

The definition covers parameters and return text, but for a macro-execution tool it is undeniably incomplete without a side-effect warning or prerequisites (e.g., that macros can modify the vault). Given no annotations and no guidance on failure or behavior, an agent is undersupplied for safe and correct use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section explains all three parameters and adds semantic value: name has concrete examples, args is defined as positional arguments, and variables is mapped explicitly to the '--var k=v' CLI convention. This compensates well for the bare schema, though it could be more precise about argument ordering.

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 states a specific action and target: 'Run a predefined macro using the mdv CLI.' This clearly distinguishes it from note-management siblings; examples like 'daily-standup' and 'new-project' reinforce what resource is being invoked.

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 does not say when to prefer run_macro over other tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions; the only implied context is the verb 'Run' and the macro examples, which is not real guidance.

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