get_scenario_runbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists what will be returned and 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe error behavior, permissions, pagination, or what happens if the scenario ID is unknown.

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 definition is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each listed content type contributes useful information about what the runbook retrieval includes.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned contents and the required scenario identifier. A note on how to obtain the ID or what happens when no scenario matches would make it fully complete.

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% and the single required scenario_id parameter is already documented with concrete slug/ID examples. The description only restates 'scenario ID or slug' and adds no format, case-sensitivity, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb, 'Retrieve', and a rich resource: 'complete step-by-step diagnostic runbook, CLI commands, root cause analysis, and production mistakes to avoid'. It scopes this to a specific incident scenario ID or slug, but it does not explicitly name a sibling such as search_incident_scenarios as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'for a specific incident scenario ID or slug' gives clear usage context: call this when you already have a specific scenario identifier. It does not state exclusions or explicitly direct the agent to search_incident_scenarios when the ID is unknown, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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