list_playbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the function (list all) and provides no details about return format, ordering, potential side effects, or response size, leaving the agent without helpful context.

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, focused sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant or filler words, earning a perfect score for 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description adequately explains its purpose. However, it could be more complete by specifying what the returned list contains (e.g., names, metadata, or IDs), but this is a minor gap for a straightforward list operation.

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 accepts no parameters, so the schema already captures everything needed. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are required, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 identifies the action (list) and specific resource (all available ClawSkills workflow playbooks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_playbook and search_playbooks by indicating it returns everything rather than a specific item or filtered set.

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 usage (use when you want all playbooks) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention search_playbooks for filtered queries, so guidance is only implicit.

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