list_playbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, default limits, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'accessible to the current user' hints at permission-based filtering but lacks detail.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. The second sentence provides useful context about what playbooks are without being redundant. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks completeness regarding behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe response format, pagination, or error handling to be fully complete for agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'name_cont' with its filtering purpose. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('playbooks accessible to the current user'), with additional context about what playbooks are ('guides and documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playbook' (singular retrieval) by specifying listing functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving multiple playbooks rather than single items (contrasting with 'get_playbook'), but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives for different filtering needs, or prerequisites. It mentions 'accessible to the current user' which gives some context about access scope.

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