Read the macro pool or one macro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it declares 'Read-only', documents the null-when-idle running line, the null-name default, and the effect of check_references. It stops short of 5 only because topics like pagination semantics beyond the default and error behavior are not addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the key constraint ('Read-only') and then cleanly segmented by mode and flag. It is dense with parenthetical enumerations, but each enumerated field (wait semantics, add_to_cmdline, etc.) earns its place for a tool with no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so comprehensively for both modes plus the reference-checking extension. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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, and it does: it maps macro (pool vs single), offset/limit (default 100), and check_references (lists referred objects and existence) to their meaning. Meaning is added for every parameter, though format details like whether offset/limit are numbers/count are left implicit.

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: reading the macro pool or a single macro, opening with 'Read-only' to signal the operation class. An agent can immediately distinguish it from write/execute siblings like gma3_run_macro, gma3_store_macro, and gma3_edit_macro_line.

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 'Without macro: ... With macro: ...' structure clearly explains the two invocation modes and their distinct outputs, giving solid context on how to call it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions (e.g. gma3_run_macro), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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