list_playbooks

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

The description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default,' but the input schema shows limit defaults to 1000, creating a direct contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to mention pagination, caching, error handling, or the purpose of parameters like force_refresh and repository_*.

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 sentence, which is concise but contains an inaccuracy (100 vs 1000 limit). It front-loads the purpose but wastes no words, though the error reduces overall value.

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, no annotations, and eight parameters undocumented in the schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain output format, pagination, or the use of repository-related parameters, and the limit contradiction further undermines the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning for only three parameters (solution, name, file path) out of eight listed in the schema. The limit, force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, and repository_branch parameters are left unexplained. With no schema descriptions, the description only partially compensates.

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 Microsoft Sentinel playbooks (Logic Apps) and specifies search filters (solution, name, file path), making the purpose immediately obvious and distinct from sibling tools like list_dashboards or list_detections.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_solutions or get_solution_details). It only implies usage for listing playbooks with filters, but no context on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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