meta-get_playbook

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Returns') but lacks detail on side effects, authorization needs, or output format. The description adequately signals safety but not comprehensively.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of available playbooks. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and enumeration.

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 no output schema, description should clarify return structure (e.g., Markdown/JSON). It does not. However, for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, it covers core functionality. Lacks depth on what a 'playbook' contains.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'name' and detailed listing of valid values. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Returns a detailed playbook/skill guide' and lists specific playbooks, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., cmmn-*, ai-*, cases-*), whereas this is a meta-help tool.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving documentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned. The context of sibling tools being operational suggests this is for guidance, but not explicitly articulated.

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