searchatlas_list_playbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List available playbooks') and immediately adds optional filtering context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing, making it easy 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. For a tool that likely returns a list of playbooks with metadata, more guidance on the response structure would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtered by agent or ownership', which loosely maps to the 'filter' and 'agent_namespace' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available playbooks (automation recipes)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like searchatlas_run_playbook by focusing on listing rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_projects beyond the resource type.

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 through the phrase 'optionally filtered by agent or ownership', suggesting it's for retrieving playbooks with potential filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_projects, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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