Systemia Field Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by stating 'Read-only. Creates no purchase, checkout, or payment obligation.' This adds domain-specific business guarantees (no financial commitment) that are not captured in the annotations, providing unique behavioral context an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two brief clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (list of playbooks and their problem areas). It also conveys the read-only nature and lack of obligations. No additional information is needed for an agent to call this tool correctly; it is fully specified for its simple scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the output (listing playbooks and problem areas) rather than inputs.

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 action (list), the resource (public Systemia Field Library playbooks), and the output scope (their problem areas). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_field_playbook (fetch a specific playbook) and match_contractor_problem (match problems to contractors). The verb 'list' vs 'get' and 'match' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 begins with 'Use this to list...', providing a direct usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to get_field_playbook for retrieving a single playbook. The sibling names are informative, but the description itself lacks explicit routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's main contribution is the return scope: 'public metadata, guide links, and landing page.' The explicit statement that 'Paid content is never returned' adds meaningful boundary information beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded and the additional exclusion ('Paid content is never returned') earns its place. Every sentence adds relevant context.

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 single-parameter read tool with read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers what is returned, what is excluded, and the fact that it targets one known playbook. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the return content for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 does not explain the slug parameter or how to obtain/format it. The property name 'slug' carries some meaning, but with low schema coverage the description should have compensated and did not.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public metadata, guide links, and landing page for one known Field Library playbook'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'one known' playbook rather than discovery or matching, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'one known Field Library playbook' implies this tool is for when the caller already has a specific playbook identifier, which is reasonable guidance. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over discover_field_playbooks or match_contractor_problem, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds context by specifying that it 'Returns public guide and playbook links only' and warns against exposing paid content, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. This is useful but does not describe the return format fully.

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 sentence that front-loads the usage condition ('Use this when...') followed by a short clause about returns and a second sentence with an exclusion. It is concise and to the point, though the list of problem domains is lengthy but necessary for clarity.

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 matching tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the input (problem), and the output type (public links). However, it misses key details: the 'limit' parameter is ignored, there is no information about what happens when no match is found, and the return format is vague (just 'links'). Given the safe annotations, these gaps are not critical but still leave room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (problem and limit). The description elaborates on 'problem' by stating it is a description of an operations problem involving various topics, which gives some meaning. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all. With both parameters undocumented in the schema, the description fails to fully compensate, especially for limit.

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 matches a contractor problem to a playbook, using a specific verb (match) and resource (contractor problem to playbook). It lists the types of problems covered, making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (discover_field_playbooks, get_field_playbook), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a contractor or home-service business describes an operations problem...' which gives a clear condition for use. It also provides a negative guideline: 'Do not use it to expose paid playbook contents.' This is helpful, though it does not mention alternative tools or when to choose this over siblings.

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