List Saved Luau Playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: storage location, metadata-only return (not source), newest-first ordering by updatedAt, and failure guidance. Minor gap: no pagination or empty-result behavior.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and sentences are efficient. However, the trailing meta-block (Phase, cost, idempotency, Requires, Produces, Safety) is boilerplate that repeats annotation-derived facts and adds length without much new 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields and noting source is excluded. Complete for a read-only list tool; only pagination/empty-result handling is unaddressed.

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%, so both params are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Signature: { tag, includeSource }' and 'optionally filtered to one tag' largely restate the schema rather than adding format/syntax detail. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List every persisted playbook'), scopes it to a directory, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns metadata only and routing source retrieval to playbook-run. An agent can tell it apart from playbook-save/run/delete without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('optionally filtered to one tag', metadata-only) and names an alternative path for getting source (playbook-run or reading the file). It stops short of explicit when-not-use guidance, but the routing to playbook-run is genuinely useful.

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