list_security_playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context about the underlying table and scope, which helps an agent interpret results, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or what happens when active defaults to true.

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 the verb and resource, followed by a single clarifying sentence about the table and scope. Nothing is repeated and nothing stray is included.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough grounding (source table, scope, example templates) for an agent to call it correctly. Only the relationship to the execution tool run_security_playbook is left unstated.

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 limit, query, and active are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics such as whether query matches label vs. name case-insensitively or how active=false behaves. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Security Incident Response playbooks') and goes further by disambiguating what a playbook actually is here: Process Automation Designer definitions in sys_pd_process_definition under the sn_si_aw scope. That said, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely named siblings like run_security_playbook, list_process_automations, or trigger_agentic_playbook.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'List' and the security-incident-response framing. It never says when to choose this over run_security_playbook (to execute one) or list_process_automations (generic PAD definitions), which are the obvious confusable siblings.

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