Response playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the full safety and side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description adds no further behavioral context (no auth needs, no rate limits, no output length/format caveats), but for a read-only, idempotent content lookup there is little behavior left to disclose, so this is adequate rather than deficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates scope in a compact, comma-separated list with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by describing a section of the returned playbook.

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 compensates by listing the playbook's sections, so the agent knows what it will receive and in what sequence. All inputs are fully documented in the schema with defaults. Only the missing routing guidance against sibling content tools keeps this from being fully complete.

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 100% and all three parameters carry enum descriptions plus defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes only the phrase 'for an incident type', which adds no meaning beyond the schema's own incident_type enum explanation; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (the playbook) scoped to a specific input (an incident type) and enumerates exactly what the artifact contains: how it shows up, first hour, containment, eradication, recovery, evidence, aftercare. An agent immediately knows this returns complete IR guidance for one incident class. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as najjab_overview or najjab_tabletop, which also return narrative content.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the playbook for an incident type' signals you call it when you have an incident class and want end-to-end handling steps, which is adequate for a lookup tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set, so an agent choosing between this, najjab_overview and najjab_tabletop gets no routing help.

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