get-macro-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (information about macros, decorators, options) and the two usage modes, but it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but minimal, as it doesn't fully compensate for the absence 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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with no wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, lists what information is returned, and provides clear usage instructions in two bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with essential information, making it easy to understand quickly.

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's complexity (simple read operation with one optional parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use it, but it doesn't detail the return format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool without output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial, but it's adequate for basic use.

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 'name' parameter documented as 'Optional: specific macro or decorator name to look up.' The description adds value by explaining the semantics: using no parameters returns a full manifest, while using the name parameter retrieves specific info. However, it doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get documentation for Macroforge macros and decorators.' It specifies the resource (macros and decorators) and verb (get documentation), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-documentation' or 'list-sections,' which might have overlapping purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 usage guidance: 'Use without parameters to get the full manifest... Use with a name parameter to get info for a specific macro or decorator.' This explains when to use each mode, but it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get-documentation' or 'list-sections,' nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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