playbooks_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the permission requirement and the response format (YAML in ZIP). It does not mention edge cases like not-found or duplicate names, but for a read-only lookup, this is reasonably transparent.

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 includes a permission note and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy exists ('Get a playbook' repeated) and the example block could be formatted more tightly, but overall it is efficient.

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 description covers purpose, permission, return format, and an example, which is decent for a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema. However, it misses edge-case behavior (e.g., not found, multiple matches) and the example's key mismatch ('filters' vs 'filter') leaves a correctness gap.

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 schema already documents the filter.field enum with descriptions, so the description adds an example request body. However, the example uses 'filters' while the schema expects 'filter' (singular), which is misleading and could cause invocation errors. The description does not clarify the correct parameter structure beyond the schema, and the inconsistency is harmful.

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 'Get a playbook' and specifies the filtering by name or ID, with the unique output format of YAML in a ZIP file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like playbooks_insert and playbooks_delete, which are write/delete operations.

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?

It provides clear context for use: filtering by name or ID and returning a ZIP file, plus a required permission (Instance Administrator) and an example request. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but it is the only getter among playbook tools, so the context is sufficient.

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