get_macros

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 explains the return format (JSON like get_device_parameters but limited to macros) and indicates this is a read operation by stating they can be set with set_macro, which conveys non-destructive intent. It does not detail error conditions or authorization, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the primary action, second provides output context by referencing a sibling tool, third gives a pointer to the corresponding setter. Every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with only two integer parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, scope, differentiation, and the related setter. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like the device needing to be a Rack, but the description already states 'of a Rack device'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of track_index or device_index, nor how to identify a Rack device. The only hint is 'Rack device' in the description, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill these parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'macro controls of a Rack device', clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_device_parameters by stating it is 'limited to the rack's macros'.

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 context by comparing to get_device_parameters and mentions that macros can be set with set_macro, implying the appropriate use case for reading macros. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond these.

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