Get playbook

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: listing versus rendering depending on parameters, and the fallback/harness compatibility note.

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 three short sentences, fully front-loaded with the conditional behavior and with no filler. Each sentence contributes either behavioral or contextual information.

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 the tool's low complexity, no output schema, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what happens when a name is provided without arguments or what an invalid name returns, but the core calling pattern is sufficiently clear.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It states that 'name' selects a playbook and 'arguments' are used to render instructions. It does not specify optionality or detailed argument formats, but it provides enough meaning for an agent to understand both parameters.

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 a specific behavior for two modes: listing playbooks without a name and rendering instructions with a name and arguments. It also clarifies the resource as MCP promptsarenas, which is distinct from the mission/delegation siblings.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is intended: 'For harnesses without MCP prompts support.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is recognizable.

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