Get Slx Runbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return content (tasks, configuration, checks) and routes free-form questions elsewhere, but never states explicitly that this is a read-only operation, nor mentions permission requirements or rate limits. Reasonable but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds return detail and a clearly marked NOTE for routing. Three short paragraphs, each earning its place, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and both parameters are fully covered. Usage routing is excellent; the only shortfall is behavioral disclosure (read-only nature, permissions) that no annotation supplies, but overall the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, with both required parameters (slx_name, workspace_name) documented in the schema. The description implies the SLX and workspace context but adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the 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+resource ('Get the runbook for a specific SLX') and explicitly enumerates what the runbook contains (tasks it runs, how configured, what they check). It names the sibling workspace_chat and clarifies the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use vs alternative: prefer workspace_chat for 'what does this SLX do?' questions, but use this tool when raw runbook YAML/JSON is needed for task authoring or programmatic inspection. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative routing the dimension asks for.

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