playbook.list.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose return format, whether the list includes read-only data, pagination behavior, or any ordering/filtering semantics. For a read/list operation with zero annotation coverage, the description should at least hint at what kind of output to expect.

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?

Single sentence, zero filler. Front-loads the verb 'List' and specifies the resource type. Slightly abbreviated ('MCP-guided SEO workflows') but efficient given the tool has no parameters to document.

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?

There is an output schema present, which lowers the burden for documenting return values. The tool is a simple parameterless list operation, so the description is mostly adequate. However, without annotations and with no clarity on how it relates to playbook.read.v1 or checklist.* tools, it falls short of fully complete for a complex sibling set.

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 has 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description accurately sets context that the result is a list of playbooks/checklists, which is sufficient.

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 'List text playbooks/checklists for MCP-guided SEO workflows' clearly states the verb (list), resource (playbooks/checklists), and purpose context (SEO workflows). It differentiates reasonably from siblings like playbook.read.v1 (which presumably reads a specific playbook). It doesn't distinguish from checklist.* siblings, but the 'playbooks/checklists' combined mention covers both.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like playbook.read.v1 and various checklist.* tools, an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool lists available playbooks before reading one, or how it differs from checklist tools. No exclusions or contextual cues beyond the generic SEO workflow mention.

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