List Macros

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it supports cursor-based pagination and that it lists all macros, not just a single one. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional detail about the operation's scope.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and core purpose. It lists filter types and pagination without wasted words, making it highly scannable.

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 list tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of capabilities: listing all macros, filtering options, and pagination. It doesn't detail response structure, but the absence of an output schema means the tool's purpose as a list operation is clear enough.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented with descriptions. The description only summarizes the filter categories, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add new semantics beyond what's already present.

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 'List all macros' which identifies the action and resource. It also lists optional filters and pagination, distinguishing it from singular get_macro and mutation macros.

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 for when to use this tool: to list all macros with optional filtering. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish this from create/update/delete/get macro operations.

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