List safe runbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by saying the tool does not execute runbooks, which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond generic read-only, and notes the resource is version-controlled.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the critical behavioral clarification 'Does not execute anything' earns its place.

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 no-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers what the call and returns conceptually: version-controlled runbooks and their risk levels. There is no return schema, but the description gives sufficient context for invocation and interpretation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for. The description needs no parameter documentation to make the tool invocable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List version-controlled runbooks and their risk levels.' The added 'Does not execute anything' clearly separates it from execute_runbook, and 'list' vs 'inspect' is self-evident against inspect_runbook.

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 phrase 'Does not execute anything' provides a practical exclusion and implicitly points to execute_runbook for execution needs. It does not explicitly mention inspect_runbook, but the list-vs-inspect distinction is clear enough from context and the sibling names.

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