Get runbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns data and supports optional narrowing by symptom, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or what happens when no runbook entries match.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys both the core purpose and the optional narrowing behavior efficiently.

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 getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential call context: what resource is retrieved and what optional filtering is available. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention behavioral edge cases or compare against related tools, but this is a minor gap for such a low-complexity tool.

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 add meaning. It does clarify that 'service' is the target of lookup and that 'symptom' narrows results. Yet it provides little additional detail about acceptable values, formatting, or the meaning of null beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('runbook entries'), and scope ('for a service') with an optional filter. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_service or get_resource_links.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this when it needs runbook entries for a service, optionally filtering by symptom. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned despite a large sibling tool list.

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