ops_playbook_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; it implies a read-only operation through 'List' and clarifies the scope to 'built-in' playbooks, but fails to describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what metadata is included for each playbook. The mention of 'multi-step Slack workflows' adds domain context but does not address operational characteristics like caching or permissions.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and immediately specifies the resource, with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves to clarify the tool's function.

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?

While appropriate for a simple listing tool, the description lacks information about the return structure since no output schema is provided, leaving the agent uncertain about what playbook metadata is returned. Given the tool's low complexity and zero parameters, the description meets minimum viable standards but omits helpful context about the relationship to ops_playbook_run.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation. The phrase 'built-in operations playbooks' implicitly confirms no filtering parameters are required, aligning with the empty schema.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'built-in operations playbooks' and qualifies them as those 'that can run multi-step Slack workflows,' which distinguishes this discovery tool from the execution sibling ops_playbook_run and other ops tools. While clear, it could explicitly reference the sibling tool to strengthen differentiation.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives like ops_playbook_run, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical workflows. The phrase 'can run multi-step Slack workflows' implies these are templates for execution but does not explicitly instruct the agent to use this for discovery before running.

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