run_macro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, safety, reversibility, or what happens when executed. No context about potential impacts is provided.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the effect of running a macro, what 'dryRun' does, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough context for correct 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 the description only hints at the 'name' parameter but says nothing about 'dryRun'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving param meanings ambiguous.

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 'Run a saved macro by name' uses a specific verb (run) and resource (saved macro), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_macros, save_macro, and run_terminal_command. It precisely conveys what the tool does.

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 implies usage for executing a previously saved macro, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use/not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough from the name and sibling tools, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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