List playbooks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free.' It adds useful context about the source of the playbooks (from teardowns, angle mining, and creatives) and that it mirrors the web app's Playbooks tab. It does not add details like pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple read-only listing.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action. The definition of playbooks and the usage guidance each add value. The 'Read-only, free' clause is slightly redundant with the annotations, but it does not bloat the description significantly.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is listed, where the data comes from, and when to use it. It does not describe return values, but the schema already covers the 'full' and 'limit' behavior, so an agent can call the tool correctly without additional detail.

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 100%: both 'full' and 'limit' have descriptive comments explaining their behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'List the PLAYBOOKS saved in this workspace'. It further defines what playbooks are (reusable strategy cards with hooks, angles, formats, plays) and anchors them to the web app's Playbooks tab, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like list_hooks and list_swipefile.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Read one before planning an ad so you re-run what already worked instead of starting cold.' This tells the agent when to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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