get_playbooks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, the logic for selecting draft vs head, and that passing specific parameters returns more detail. No side effects or permissions mentioned, but overall 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?

Single paragraph of 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose and components. Efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains return content (config components) and parameter behaviors. Does not describe return format or errors, but sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds extra context: branch_id explains behavior when omitted and draft stacking; playbook_id says it returns full config. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads a multi_agents agent's Playbooks config, listing specific components (intent router, shared auth tools, SOP list). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reading config, and uses a specific verb 'Read' with clear resource 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 provides context on when to use variants (with playbook_id for full detail, branch_id for targeting a branch) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like get_branch_draft. The branch draft vs head logic gives clear guidance on expected behavior.

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