dbt-get-macro

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return types (signature, raw SQL, reverse-lookup) but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality well. It could elaborate more on parameter usage, but the schema descriptions handle that. The reverse-lookup aspect is a nice extra detail.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'name' and 'uniqueId' or how 'extractFields' reduces tokens.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'dbt macro' and specifies the exact outputs: signature, raw SQL, and reverse-lookup of nodes that call it. This differentiates it from sibling tools like dbt-get-model or dbt-get-source which have different resources and outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use 'name' vs 'uniqueId' parameters, or how this differs from dbt-list-macros which lists all macros. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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