arvan_ansible_playbook

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

Annotations flag this as a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that host-key checking is disabled and that auth defaults to SSH settings. It does not disclose error handling, output format, or failure behavior, which are important for a playbook executor.

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 brief and gets the main point across in two sentences plus a note. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured to separate prerequisites from behavior.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical details such as return values, idempotency, and parameter constraints (e.g., playbook format details).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'playbook' is YAML content and hints at SSH defaults for auth, but does not describe other parameters like 'become', 'extra_vars', or 'timeout'. This leaves significant gaps.

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 ('Run an Ansible playbook against a host') and specifies the required external dependency. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings as the only Ansible playbook runner, but lacks explicit mention of the ArvanCloud context.

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 implies usage for SSH-accessible hosts and notes that host-key checking is disabled for fresh servers, offering some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the decision partially ambiguous.

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