List Tracker queue macros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it describes what each returned item represents (canned comment plus field updates) and that ids feed tracker_macros_get, which is the only place the return shape is conveyed since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the resource is front-loaded and the second sentence carries actionable routing information rather than filler.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers what is listed, what each item contains, and how ids connect to tracker_macros_get. With annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is a single parameter (queue_id) fully documented in the schema as a case-sensitive key or numeric id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (every macro configured on a queue) and clarifies what a macro is (a canned comment plus field updates), so an agent understands precisely what is being enumerated. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tracker_macros_get by explaining the id linkage, making the purpose unambiguous against a large sibling set.

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 routes the agent to the correct next step: use this list to obtain ids, then pass an id to tracker_macros_get for the full body and issueUpdate rows. That is a clear alternative-and-condition hint, though it states no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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