playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (markdown) and that this is instructional rather than mutating, but never states that it is side-effect free/idempotent or what 'driving the pipeline' entails. Low risk for a zero-param doc fetcher, but disclosure is thin.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the guidance immediately after. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and a zero-param read-only doc fetch is simple. The description could still say what the playbook covers or how it relates to run_options/orchestrator_next_action, but it is adequate as written.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: return the AppFactory run playbook in markdown. That distinguishes it from the pipeline/orchestrator state tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent guidance siblings like run_options or orchestrator_preflight.

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?

'Read it before driving the pipeline' gives explicit timing for when to call it. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling supersedes it for guidance, so it stops short of full routing.

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