Run (Go+) or stop (Off) a macro and observe it

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the dispatched-vs-observed split, that a failing line does not stop a macro, and that prompt lines require operator input. It omits permission/auth requirements and concurrency behavior, so not a 5.

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 'EXECUTES:' and fits the essential semantics into one dense block with no filler. It is somewhat run-on with several clauses chained by dashes and parentheticals, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the return shape (dispatched vs observed, plus the finished/paused_at_go/running/idle states). Combined with zero annotations, the only meaningful gap is the undocumented interval_ms and any error/permission behavior.

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. It documents 'macro' (N), the 'go'/'off' enum, and observe_seconds (default 3, max 60), but leaves interval_ms completely unexplained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb and resource ('EXECUTES: action go sends Go+ Macro N ... off sends Off Macro N') and even disambiguates the two modes. An agent can tell this apart from gma3_store_macro / gma3_edit_macro_line purely from the verb semantics.

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?

Explains what 'go' means contextually ('starts it, or continues it after a Go wait'), which implies when each action applies, but never states when to reach for this tool instead of alternatives like gma3_command or gma3_macros. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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