playbook.read.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 confirms this is a read operation, but it doesn't describe what the output looks like (output schema exists but isn't summarized), whether the playbook_id must match a specific format, or what happens if the file is not found. For a tool lacking annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 single efficient sentence with no waste. It's appropriately short for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the bar is relatively lower. However, with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no description of the output format or how playbook_id is obtained, the description leaves too much to inference. The sibling playbook.list.v1 suggests playbook IDs come from a list call, but this isn't stated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. The description mentions playbook_id in its prose ('by playbook_id') which adds some meaning, but it doesn't explain what a playbook_id is, where to obtain one, or whether it references a file path or a semantic identifier documented elsewhere. The single parameter is barely described.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Read a playbook/checklist text file by playbook_id.' It identifies what the tool does, though it conflates playbook and checklist somewhat. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling playbook.list.v1 (which presumably lists playbooks), so the differentiation from siblings is weak.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided beyond the basic action. The sibling tools like playbook.list.v1 suggest there is a list-vs-read distinction that could be drawn, but the description doesn't clarify when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or context for use.

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