km_get_macro_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions the output is 'full XML definition', but lacks detail on authentication needs, rate limits, or exact output format. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, with the first stating the core purpose and the second adding practical use cases. No superfluous words or information; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return type implication. It could mention the XML format or that it's a read operation, but overall it is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('Macro name or UID'), so it meets the minimum for a single-parameter 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full XML definition of a macro, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'full XML definition'. The added note on usefulness for understanding or creating macros distinguishes it from siblings like km_get_macro or km_get_action_xml.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('useful for understanding macro structure or creating similar macros') but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios where it should be avoided. Sibling tools like km_get_macro are not mentioned as alternatives, but the context is clear.

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