get_playbook

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that only 2-3 rule files are returned (not all), which is specific behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return value nature, and valid inputs. It lacks details on rule file format but is sufficient for selection.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter description. The description adds the list of valid task types, which is not present as an enum in the schema, providing extra semantic clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 retrieves curated architectural rules for a specific task type, specifying the output is only 2-3 relevant files and listing valid task types. This distinguishes it from other 'get' siblings by resource and scope.

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 implies usage for obtaining architectural rules for a task type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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