list_runbooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation and adds that it returns lifecycle status and cell count. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, performance limits, or error conditions, which are common for list operations. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that conveys the exact purpose without any extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the clear sibling get_runbook for individual retrieval, the description is complete for this simple list operation. It states the scope and the included fields, which is all an agent needs to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline, a zero-parameter tool merits a 4; the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all runbooks in the tenant' and specifies the returned attributes (lifecycle status, cell count). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_runbook (single item) and create/deprecate operations.

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 that this tool is for retrieving all runbooks, which is clear from the name and wording, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_runbook or state when to prefer this over other runbook-related tools. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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