run_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries responsibility for disclosing side effects. It mentions 'allowlisted roots' and suggests using check mode, implying the tool can make changes, but it does not explicitly state that it may modify systems or require elevated privileges.

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?

Two short sentences, each contributing distinct information: what it does and how to use it safely. No filler.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about parameter roles, error behavior, and the consequences of running playbooks with check_mode=false, making it incomplete for safe use.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 11 parameters. The parameter names are in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value to compensate for the missing descriptions.

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 runs ansible-playbook with a specific path constraint (allowlisted roots). This is distinct from sibling tools which focus on modules (search_modules, run_module, etc.).

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 advises to prefer check_mode=true first, which provides a clear usage guideline. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the tool's purpose is obvious against module-related siblings.

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