List playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by confirming 'Read-only, free' and noting it matches the web app's Playbooks tab, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior, or default ordering. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Four sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, the second ties it to a familiar surface (web app tab), the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth restates safety. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple list tool with 2 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description covers what playbooks are, when to use it, and what the params do via schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (full, limit) have schema descriptions with 100% coverage: 'full' explains it returns every hook/angle/play and 'limit' documents default and max. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise verb+resource ('List the PLAYBOOKS saved in this workspace') and then defines what playbooks are (winning hooks, angles, formats, concrete plays) with operational context (kept from teardowns and angle mining). It is clearly distinct from sibling list_swipefile, which targets a different asset type.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Read one before planning an ad so you re-run what already worked instead of starting cold.' This tells an agent when to call it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to consider or state when NOT to use it.

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