playbook_generate

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by stating the exact output file path (rc-method/PLAYBOOK-{name}.md) and the fact that it aggregates all pipeline outputs. Since annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description's additional detail about file output and prerequisites is sufficient and does not contradict the annotations.

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 and well-structured over three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the content scope, and the third gives the output location and prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 the simple schema (2 params, no enums) and the idempotency annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it aggregates, the output file, and the requirement. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or return values, but these are not critical given the annotations and the lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (project_name with default behavior, project_path as absolute path) with 100% coverage. The description indirectly references project_name in the file path template but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: generate the Project Playbook/ARD. It lists all the input sources (research, PRD, decisions, etc.) and describes the output as the master deliverable for development teams, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual pipeline phases.

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 states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires at least one pipeline phase to have been completed') and implies the appropriate use case by describing the deliverable as something a non-technical user hands to a development team. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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