get_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions coverage of authentication and error semantics but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or clarify side effects. More explicit disclosure of behavioral traits would improve transparency.

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 concise: a single sentence defining the main purpose, followed by a list of content areas. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, but an existing output schema, the description provides comprehensive context about the tool's return value and its scope. It covers all necessary aspects for a zero-input tool, making it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (usage rules), which goes beyond the schema. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and this is justified.

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 that the tool returns the global DivineAPI usage rules (the docs-pack header), listing specific content areas. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint or search_docs, which likely focus on individual endpoints or search.

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 'Read this before constructing any request,' providing strong usage guidance. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, the imperative is clear and contextually sufficient.

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