usermacro_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which already communicate the safety profile. The description does not add any behavioral disclosure such as pagination behavior, response format, or filtering semantics. The added explanation is domain background, not operational behavior, so it adds little beyond 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 brief and front-loaded with the primary operation. The two additional sentences explaining user macros are informative but not strictly necessary for using the tool. It is concise, though the explanatory sentences could be considered slightly extraneous, so a 4 is suitable.

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?

With 13 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description lacks important operational context such as the distinction between host and global macros, or common usage patterns. The domain explanation helps but does not address how to effectively use the tool's many options. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 92%, meaning the input schema already documents the parameters well. The description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving all semantic meaning to the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage but adds no extra value in clarifying parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'user macros', and adds a brief definition of what user macros are, which is helpful domain context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name and operation are unambiguous. A 5 would require naming an alternative, so 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as usermacro_create, usermacro_delete, or other get tools. It explains the domain but not the operational context or prerequisites. There is no mention of when to choose this over other tools, so it lacks usage direction.

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