live_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 that this reads the running Studio One instance, that macros may be built-in or user-created, and that most act on the current selection. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor anything about ordering, pagination, or failure behavior when Studio One is not running.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the optional behaviors. It is efficient, though the parenthetical and trailing clause make it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (titles, plus runnability when requested) and the selection caveat. Only the filter semantics and read-only nature are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains with_state well ('adds whether each can run right now') but only says 'optionally filtered' for filter, leaving unclear what field is matched (title? substring? case sensitivity).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the macros in the running Studio One') and scopes it to the Macros panel including built-in and user macros. It implicitly separates itself from live_run_macro by being a listing operation, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It hints at usage by explaining that with_state reports whether each macro can run right now and that most act on the selection, which tells an agent when the state flag matters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as live_run_macro.

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