keystone_new_playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that it scaffolds a markdown file, but it does not mention important side effects such as whether it overwrites an existing file, what the `force` parameter does, or any filesystem impacts beyond the path. Since 'force' is a parameter, the behavior likely involves handling existing files, but the description leaves this ambiguous.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The additional explanation of playbooks and phase gates is useful context and does not feel wasted. It stays within a few sentences and is well-structured, though the phase gate list is somewhat tangential to the scaffold operation itself.

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 this is a scaffolding tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the `force` parameter, the behavior when the file already exists, or what the generated playbook contains. The context about phase gates helps but does not cover essential operational details. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's side effects and parameter semantics remain unclear.

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 provides only parameter names and types, with no descriptions, and the tool description also does not explain the parameters. `name` is evident from the path template, but `force` is completely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and with 0% schema description coverage, this is a major gap.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Scaffold' and clearly states the resource ('a new playbook markdown') and its destination (under `.keystone/harness/playbooks/<name>.md`). It also differentiates from sibling tools like keystone_new_guide or keystone_new_sensor by defining what a playbook is, making it unambiguous what this tool creates.

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 explains the purpose of playbooks ('orchestrate multiple actions into a higher-level flow') which implies when to use this tool—when you need a multi-action orchestration file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternative tools like keystone_new_script or keystone_new_action. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, but the context is sufficient to infer the general use case.

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