List Playbooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that archived playbooks are hidden by default, which is a key behavior. It also lists the returned fields, giving some structure. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any rate limits, leaving minor gaps for a list tool.

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?

Two concise sentences clearly convey purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is returned and the default filtering. Minor omissions: does not mention if the list is paginated or if there is a limit, but for typical small-scale playbooks this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'include_archived' is already well described in the schema. The description reinforces the default behavior but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 the action ('List all defined playbooks') and the resource ('for this company'), and specifies the returned fields (name, slug, description, step count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_playbook (single), create_playbook, or list_playbook_runs.

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 implies that this tool is for listing playbooks and mentions the archived filtering default. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_playbook (for a single playbook) or list_playbook_runs (for runs), nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.

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