List playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive properties, and the description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only; it does not create or modify playbooks.' The description adds the permission requirement and mentions the type of data returned (access role, content counts), but these are not major behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so a high but not maximal score 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 consists of three concise sentences, each conveying necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 description provides sufficient context: it specifies the scope (owned or shared), what is included (access role, content counts), that it is read-only, offers an alternative for a single playbook, and mentions required permissions. Since an output schema exists, no need to describe return format separately.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the empty schema. According to the rubric, with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists playbooks owned or shared, including access role and content counts, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_playbook, which retrieves a single playbook with more detail. This makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from sibling 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 explicitly advises using get_playbook for a single playbook with additional details, providing an alternative. It also mentions the required permission (playbooks:read or full), giving clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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