Load a playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns a focused guide, that it covers 'traps not obvious from the API', and specifically calls out page builders as a scenario where the playbook is critical. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 moderately long but well structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then the usage directive, and then a specific, illustrative caveat about page builders. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It could be slightly more compact, but it earns its length by providing critical operational guidance.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to provide, what to expect, and when to use it. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given the annotations and the nature of the tool. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most expected scenarios.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both 'name' and 'query' with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that 'query' is for describing the task and 'name' for loading a specific skill, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, per the rubric, a baseline of 3 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 tool's purpose: 'Load the playbook for the task at hand' with a specific verb (load) and resource (playbook). It goes on to explain what a playbook is and why it exists, making it distinct from all sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when starting any substantive task' and instructs the agent to 'describe what you are about to do'. It also provides a concrete example (page builders) where using this tool is essential, effectively telling the agent when to invoke it. This is explicit and decisive usage guidance.

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