mkt_playbooks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing output characteristics that matter for trust calibration: every entry ships with an evidence source and a risk warning, and entries lacking evidence say so themselves. That is genuinely useful context beyond the schema, but the description is silent on read-only nature, volume, pagination, and whether loading the list has any side effect.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the payload characteristics. No filler. It could be marginally tighter, but for a zero-parameter tool the length is appropriate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does name the two things that matter per entry (evidence source, risk flag) plus the honesty caveat for unsupported playbooks. Missing only the shape or count of the list, which is a minor gap for a simple enumerator.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 identifies the resource ("可用 playbook 清单" – the list of available playbooks), so an agent knows it is an inventory-style retrieval. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from near-siblings such as mkt_templates or mkt_capabilities, which likely also enumerate reusable assets. Purpose is inferable but not sharply distinguished.

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?

Nothing states when to use this versus mkt_search, mkt_templates, or mkt_capabilities, nor any prerequisite or follow-up step. The agent must guess the routing from the name alone.

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