playbooks

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

The description discloses a specific limitation (omission of supportedTechnologies due to a server error) and points to graphql_query as a fallback. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not clarify return values, permissions, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'query'.

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 very short, but includes the template artifact 'Example variables: {}' which adds noise. The note about supportedTechnologies is useful, but the opening 'Playbooks ·' is redundant with the tool name, and the structure could be tighter.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a playbook is, the shape of the response, or the intended use case, leaving the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only parameter, customer_slug, is already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for this parameter, so the baseline score of 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 states the tool queries playbooks, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'customer_playbooks' or the broader 'playbook_runs', so it lacks differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'customer_playbooks' or 'recommended_playbooks'. The note about the server-side error is a workaround, not usage guidance.

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