playbook_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does establish that the result is a collection that embeds linked rules rather than bare playbook entries. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination, or whether the call is safe/read-only, and with zero parameters there is no way to narrow the result set — a constraint worth stating explicitly.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and returned data front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter read listing with no output schema, the description is minimal but not empty: it tells the agent playbooks come back with their linked rules attached. However, without an output schema it should ideally describe the practical shape of the response (fields, whether rules are nested arrays, volume), and it omits any routing note versus playbook_get.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. One could argue for a note that the absence of parameters means no filtering is possible, but that is not required by this dimension.

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?

"List playbooks with linked rules" states a specific verb (list) and resource (playbooks), plus a hint at the payload (linked rules included). It is distinguishable from playbook_add/playbook_remove by the verb, though it never explicitly contrasts with playbook_get, which fetches a single playbook.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the nearest alternative (playbook_get for a single playbook). The only routing signal is the verb "List" in the name and description, leaving the agent to infer that this is the bulk-retrieval option.

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