lc_get_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Fetch' (a read operation) but omits any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, error behavior, or rate limits.

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, short sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits important details, trading conciseness for completeness.

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 no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. A simple fetch tool may afford brevity, but the generic parameter names 'oid' and 'name' require clarification.

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%; the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'oid' and 'name'. It does not explain what these identifiers represent or how to use them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('playbook Hive record'), clearly indicating retrieval of a single playbook record. It indirectly distinguishes from sibling list tools like lc_list_playbooks, but does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling 'get' tools, the description does not specify selection criteria or contrast with tools like lc_get_hive_record.

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