get_macro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the context that the tool returns 'full actions', which is consistent but does not add new behavioral details beyond the annotations. A minor missed opportunity to clarify scope, but no contradiction.

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 sentences front-load the core action and then provide targeted usage alternatives. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, scope ('full actions'), and provides context for when to use alternatives, which is sufficient given the low 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (id as macro ID, instance as override). No improvement needed.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'macro by ID' with 'full actions'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by providing alternative use cases, such as using find_unused for deletion safety checks.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: for checking if a macro is safe to delete, use find_unused; for impact analysis on referenced items, use find_field_usage, find_form_usage, or find_group_usage. This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to prefer.

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