list_playbooks

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', indicating a safe read operation returning all accessible records. The description adds the source table but reveals no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or filtering rules beyond the default limit. It does not contradict annotations.

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, concise sentence that states the exact action and target resource. No redundant words or filler, earning a perfect score for efficiency and directness.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description provides enough context to understand what it does and what it lists. It could potentially mention the return format, but the name and schema cover the essentials, making this complete for its complexity.

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 'limit' is fully described in the schema ('Max records to return (default 25)'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool lists stored playbook definitions, specifying the source table 'sys_hub_action_type_definition'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_process_automations' or 'list_flows' by naming the specific resource and table.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention executors, creation workflows, or indicate whether this is a prerequisite for actions like 'execute_playbook'. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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