get_macro_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: retrieval is sectioned and paginated, requiring the caller to iterate next cursors until complete, and that designId scopes alias resolution to a session registry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and section list, then pagination, then the optional scoping parameter. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical section list duplicates the schema enum.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It covers pagination and section enumeration, but leaves id vs idOrRef, default section behavior, and error semantics undocumented for a 5-parameter 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 0% across 5 parameters. The description partly compensates by listing the valid section values and explaining designId's registry-pinning effect, but it never explains the difference between the two look-alike identity parameters id and idOrRef, which is the most consequential ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (one section of a compiled macro block blueprint), and enumerates the section types, which lets an agent distinguish it from the search-oriented sibling search_macro_blocks. It stops short of naming a specific alternative the way a 5 would.

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?

"Follow next cursors until complete" is actionable pagination guidance and the designId sentence hints at when to supply it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to a sibling such as get_component_details for non-macro blocks, so usage is only implied.

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