analyze_rpm_macros

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds useful context beyond the annotation: it lists specific return values (CFLAGS, MAKEFLAGS, compression settings, build configuration) and the platform restriction (SUSE Linux). It does not describe return formatting or failure modes, but for a read-only analysis tool this is adequate.

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 short but contains redundancy: the return values are listed twice with slightly different wording ('build configuration' vs 'build directory configuration'). The second sentence mostly repeats the first, making it less concise than it could be.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, readOnlyHint annotation), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the platform limitation. The slight ambiguity about 'build configuration' vs 'build directory configuration' prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings that do not exist, and it does not attempt to invent any. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Parse and analyze rpm macros.' It identifies a specific resource (rpm macros) and a specific action (parse and analyze). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_zypper_conf or analyze_storage, which target different resources.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes 'Only works on SUSE Linux,' which is a platform constraint, not a usage condition. No prerequisites, scenarios, or recommended context are provided.

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