parse_macro_output

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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it detects format and produces key/value maps, tabular rows, and numbers. It lacks mention of error handling for unparseable input, but overall adds value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with action and outputs, followed by a recommendation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects. It could mention limitations like large text handling, but overall it is sufficient for this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's additional note about preferring small JSON is a minor augmentation. Baseline 3 applies as schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 converts macro return text into structured JSON, listing specific output components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated to parsing macro output.

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 advises preferring macros that return JSON or key=value for best results, providing usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is helpful and appropriate given the tool's uniqueness.

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