List playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that saved skills shadow bundled ones with the same name, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not mention return format or pagination, but these are less critical for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the shadowing note is a valuable addition. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It does not describe the exact return format, which could be mildly helpful, but the absence of that detail is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially covered by the empty schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there is none needed. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate.

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 every available playbook') and the resource (playbooks/skills). It also distinguishes from other list tools by specifying it covers both bundled and saved playbooks, and adds the shadowing nuance. This makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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 clear context: use this to see all available playbooks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a simple listing tool, the usage is self-apparent given the resource type. No exclusions or routing to siblings are needed.

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