Get Playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needn't restate safety. But it adds nothing beyond them: the notable behavior of the `include` parameter (side-loading related severities/environments/services/groups/causes/incident_types) and any not-found or permission behavior go unmentioned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scoping key appear immediately. It is efficient but so short that the brevity reads as under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, for a two-parameter read tool with a non-obvious `include` expansion option, the description leaves the agent without any statement of what the tool returns or how expansion changes the payload.

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%, including a helpful note that the argument is `id` and not `playbook_id`, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes 'by id' and says nothing about the `include` enum, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific playbook') scoped by id, which is enough to separate it from list_playbooks. It does not name the sibling get_playbook_task or explain the relationship, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_playbooks or get_playbook_task. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the single-record fetch.

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