get-runbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the core function and does not mention what happens if the runbook ID does not exist, whether the operation is read-only, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent uninformed about behavioral outcomes beyond the happy path.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needn't be lengthy. However, the description lacks any mention of return value behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. While adequate for a basic get-by-ID operation, it leaves some gaps that are not compensated by annotations or schema.

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 schema has one parameter (runbook_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's "by ID" clarifies that runbook_id refers to the runbook's unique identifier, adding meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify the expected format, length, or any constraints beyond the type string.

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 "Get a runbook by ID" clearly states the verb (Get), resource (runbook), and specific scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbooks (list) and update-runbook/delete-runbook, as it targets a single runbook retrieval.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get-runbooks should be used for listing all runbooks, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or complementary tools. The only implied usage is when a runbook ID is known, but this is not explicitly stated.

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