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 burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits. However, as a get operation, the lack of transparency is not critical but still leaves room for improvement.

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, with a clear first line stating purpose, a second paragraph detailing the return content, and a third paragraph giving usage guidance. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema (context signals: true), the description adequately explains what the output contains: 'runbook definition including what tasks it runs, how they're configured, and what they check.' This is complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'slx_name' (the SLX short name) and 'workspace_name' (the workspace the SLX belongs to). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get the runbook for a specific SLX' and specifies it returns the runbook definition including tasks, configuration, and checks. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'workspace_chat' by noting that tool provides contextual explanations.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'For questions like what does this SLX do? or what tasks does it run?, prefer workspace_chat — it provides contextual explanations. Use this tool when you need the raw runbook YAML/JSON (e.g. for task authoring or programmatic inspection).' This clearly tells when to use and when not.

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