get_runbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions what is returned ('name, status, and each cell's type/target/content preview') but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, performance characteristics, or auth requirements. This is acceptable for a simple get but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line args block. It conveys the primary purpose and parameter without redundancy, front-loading the core action 'Get a runbook with all its cells' before any secondary details.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to detail the return structure. It already summarizes key return fields. For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essentials, though it omits mention of potential pagination or large response handling—likely unnecessary for a get-by-id operation.

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 one parameter (runbook_id) with only type and title, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by explaining 'The runbook id to fetch', which is sufficient for an agent to understand the parameter's purpose. It compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('runbook with all its cells'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_runbooks (which lists multiple) and add_cell (which modifies). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the operation's 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 (fetch a runbook by ID) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runbooks or get_dashboard. It lacks exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name.

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