run_macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does not disclose any behavior: whether execution is synchronous or fire-and-forget, what happens if the macro name is unknown, what side effects the macro triggers, or whether permissions are required. For an action/execution tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about effects, failure modes, or return behavior. The single parameter is covered by the schema, but the behavioral context an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Macro name as shown in the macro list"), so the schema already documents it fully. "By name" in the description adds nothing beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Execute a macro") that clearly identifies an action tool, and "by name" hints at the input it needs. It does not, however, mention or contrast with the sibling list_macros, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation cue.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite that the macro must already exist, and no reference to list_macros as the way to discover valid names. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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