get_runbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It does add a small behavioral detail by specifying that lookup occurs by operation key, but it does not describe error behavior, return format, or what happens if the runbook is not found. This is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.

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 a single concise sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning: 'Get a project runbook by operation key.' There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundant information, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a runbook contains or what the return value looks like, but it does not. It fails to mention any edge cases, such as missing runbooks or authorization requirements. Given the tool's apparent simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description leaves significant contextual gaps, earning a 2.

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 must compensate for lack of parameter docs. It clarifies that 'operation' is a key but does not explain what constitutes a valid key or provide examples. 'project' is also left as a bare string with no semantic detail. This is insufficient for a low-coverage scenario, so a score of 2 is warranted.

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 that the tool retrieves a project runbook using an operation key, which is a specific verb-resource pair ('Get' + 'runbook') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context or record_fact. It also mentions the key identifier (operation key), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_context or search_context. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The lack of any usage context earns a low score.

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