playbook_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'query', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose nested behavior, return shape, authentication needs, or rate limits. The example variables hint at complex filtering and pagination but without explanation, leaving the agent to guess what happens.

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 poorly structured wall of text. It begins with a short phrase, then dumps a redundant variable list (duplicating the schema) and a massively long example with repeated placeholders. This is not concise and makes it harder for an agent to extract key information.

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 30 parameters, high complexity, and no output schema, a complete description is essential. This description provides almost no context: no explanation of what a playbook run is, what the query returns, how the nested connections relate, or what to do with the 'id' parameter. It is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 descriptions are just GraphQL type names (e.g., 'AccessGroupFilter'), so they convey limited semantics. The description adds a detailed example showing the structure of filter objects and order objects, which is valuable for constructing arguments. However, it does not explain the meaning or purpose of each variable beyond the example, so it only partially compensates for the shallow schema descriptions.

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 'query playbookRun', which is little more than a restatement of the tool name. It doesn't explain what a playbook run is, what the query returns, or whether it fetches a single item or a list. The mention of 'id' suggests a single resource, but the many pagination variables imply nested lists, creating ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'playbook_runs' or 'run_playbook'. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual cues. The description is purely declarative and offers no decision support.

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