list_macros

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

Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. It clearly states it returns raw console output (a string). This is adequate for a simple read operation, though it could mention if there are any side effects (likely none). No contradictions.

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 concise sentences plus a Returns line that adds clarity. Every element is purposeful with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states the action and the return format, which is all an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters in schema with 100% coverage. Description adds no param info because there are no params, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is justified.

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?

Explicitly states it lists macros in the macro pool, a specific verb+resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_macro, run_macro, delete_macro_tool, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While context implies it's for listing macros, the description lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' directives common in well-documented tools.

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