Get Tracker queue macro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful content hint (comment body plus field updates) but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown macro_id or whether the queue_id is validated — modest added value on top of annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing guidance placed second where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned payload (comment body, field updates), and both required parameters are fully covered. It falls short only on error/not-found behavior for an invalid macro_id, which is a minor gap for a simple read.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both queue_id and macro_id are already documented in the schema, including the case-sensitive queue key format. The description adds only 'by id' and the implicit provenance of the id from macros_list, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource+scope ('One queue macro by id') and immediately discloses what the resource contains ('its comment body and the field updates it applies'), which is far beyond a tautology. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with, so the agent can separate it from tracker_macros_list without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use macros_list to enumerate, and pass one of its id values here. That is a clear when-to-use plus a named alternative, though it does not spell out when-not to use this tool (e.g., versus macros_update/macros_delete for mutation).

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