skill_playbook_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the term 'multi-step procedures' to clarify playbooks, but beyond that, it offers no additional behavioral detail (e.g., pagination, ordering, effects of listing). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with all essential information front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the resource type and read-only nature. However, it could mention what the output contains (e.g., list of playbook names) to be fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'book_id' described as 'Skill id.' The description does not add further meaning (e.g., format, source). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'playbooks (multi-step procedures)', and the context 'for a book skill'. It also declares 'Read-only', distinguishing it from sibling tools like skill_playbook_start and skill_playbook_next that perform actions.

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 listing playbooks in a read-only manner, and the context signals 1 required parameter (book_id) indicate a specific skill context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like skill_search or library_list, though siblings suggest different purposes.

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