run_macro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds critical context: 'HIGH RISK — macro content may cause motion' warns of potential physical hazards and mutation effects, which is essential for a tool that could trigger machine movement. However, it doesn't detail other aspects like permissions or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core action and risk warning in just two sentences, with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information concisely.

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?

Given the complexity (high-risk execution tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and critical safety warnings but lacks details on return values or error handling. It compensates well for the lack of structured data but could be more comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Macro name or ID to execute'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't specify format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Execute a CNCjs macro') and resource ('by name or ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_macros' (which lists macros) and 'send_gcode' (which sends raw commands). It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 execute a macro) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'send_gcode' for direct commands or 'list_macros' for inspection, though the purpose implies differentiation.

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