playbook_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that linked rules are embedded in the result, which is real behavioral information beyond the schema. It omits error/not-found behavior, whether the read is side-effect free, and any pagination or size considerations for embedded rules.

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?

One short sentence with the key qualifier (embedded rules) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves gaps that a slightly longer sentence could have closed.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level (playbook plus embedded rules). Missing details are minor: id provenance and not-found behavior.

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 single parameter 'id' has no description, so the description would need to compensate. It does not define the id format or source (e.g., obtained from playbook_list), leaving semantics implicit, though the meaning of a playbook id is largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (playbook) and adds that linked rules are embedded, which distinguishes its payload from a bare retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling playbook_list, so the 5 bar is not quite met.

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?

Retrieval by id implies the natural use case, and the sibling playbook_list makes the single-vs-many split reasonably inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer playbook_list, and no note about behavior when the id does not exist.

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