get_queue_macro

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read, so the description is not required to restate safety. But it adds nothing else: no note on whether the macro must exist, what error occurs for an unknown macroId, or any scoping behavior. It is pure restatement of the title.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the resource is front-loaded. It is genuinely concise rather than padded, but it is also so thin that brevity tips into under-specification.

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 two-required-parameter getter with no output schema, the description should at minimum disambiguate IDs and note the list sibling. With 0% parameter documentation and no return or error context, it is not complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither macroId nor queueId is described anywhere. The phrase "one macro of a queue" weakly implies the two identifiers, which is the only compensation offered, but it says nothing about accepted formats (string vs number) or whether macroId is queue-scoped.

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?

"Get one macro of a queue" names a specific verb (get) and a resource (queue macro), so the basic operation is discernible. However, it never distinguishes itself from its obvious siblings get_queue_macroses (the list form) or update_queue_macro, and "macro" is left undefined. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the singular-vs-list relationship.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative is given. The agent must guess that this is the single-item fetch paired with get_queue_macroses. Nothing in the text routes the caller.

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