get_playbooks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Clearly indicates it's a read operation ('Read a... config') and describes what it returns. Does not mention permissions or error conditions, but the read-only nature is 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and contents. No fluff, every word earns its place. Efficient and clear.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately lists what the response contains. It could be more specific about the shape of the SOP list or pagination, but it's sufficient for a read tool with good parameter documentation.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: explains that playbook_id returns full detail, and draft_id/version_id override the active version. This provides context beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it reads a multi_agents agent's Playbooks config, listing specific components (intent router, shared auth tools, SOP list). Distinguishes itself from siblings like add_playbooks or configure_playbooks which are write 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?

Explains that by default it reads the active version, and provides guidance on using draft_id or version_id to inspect other versions. Does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but context implies it for reading, not writing.

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