Playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes only the extra fact that the returned text is identical to the `run` prompt and the playbook resource, which is mild but real context; it adds nothing about size, caching, or failure modes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines in a 'what / use when / returns' shape with no filler. The 'Returns: markdown string' line slightly duplicates the output schema, but the total size is minimal.

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?

With rich annotations, a present output schema, and zero parameters, the description supplies everything needed to call it: what it yields, when it is appropriate, and what format to expect. Nothing essential is missing for a tool this simple.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly presents it as a no-argument fetch, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (return the AppFactory run playbook as markdown) and immediately disambiguates it from the adjacent `run` prompt and the appfactory://playbook resource. An agent can tell what it gets without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a named sibling tool.

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 'Use when: before driving the pipeline' clause gives a clear triggering condition tied to the orchestration workflow. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, but for a static reference fetch there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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