get_troubleshooting_playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[READ-ONLY]' prefix merely repeats that. The description adds useful context about the playbook's contents but does not disclose additional behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, though for a read-only retrieval tool these are less critical.

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, front-loaded with the read-only nature and primary action, and every clause earns its place. The topic list is long but directly supports the tool's purpose, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only reference tool, the description fully equips an agent: it states what is returned, lists the covered domains, and says when to consult it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the return value's scope without needing a formal schema.

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 the schema description coverage is effectively 100% by vacuity. The description correctly provides no parameter details, and the topic list helps set expectations for what the returned playbook contains. The no-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the troubleshooting playbook'), then enumerates the topics it covers. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling getters and diagnose tools, which focus on individual data sources or checks.

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 to read it 'when the cause is unclear or before concluding,' giving clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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