recommended_playbooks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via the word 'query', but offers no additional context such as permissions, pagination, or return behavior. For a query tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single line plus an example. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but the example adds valuable context, so it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not state what the query returns or what fields are available. The filter semantics are only partially illustrated via the example. Given the presence of sibling playbook-related tools, this description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and result.

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 schema description for 'filter' is merely a type reference ('GraphQL: RecommendedPlaybookFilter!'), providing no semantic meaning. The description compensates by giving an example structure with 'artifacts' and 'tempRuleId', which adds practical guidance beyond the schema. The 'customer_slug' parameter is adequately described in the schema.

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 operation as 'query recommendedPlaybooks', which clearly identifies the action (query) and the resource (recommended playbooks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'playbooks' or 'customer_playbooks' by specifying the 'recommended' variant, though it does not elaborate on what 'recommended' means.

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 'playbooks' or 'customer_playbooks'. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and example filter.

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