List playbooks

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: saved skills shadow bundled ones with the same name, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not describe return shape, but the annotations lower the burden here.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the shadowing nuance is added only after the core behavior is established.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description plus annotations is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not stating the exact response format, but the description's 'List every available playbook' sufficiently conveys intent without an output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics carry no burden. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('every available playbook'), and further specifies the scope as bundled and saved. It also distinguishes this tool from the many other list_* siblings by naming the specific resource type it enumerates.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: to enumerate all available playbooks including saved ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but there is no sibling tool that lists playbooks/skills, so the usage is unambiguous.

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