openemis_get_playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') implying read-only, but omits any details about permissions, rate limits, or side effects. No safety or behavioral traits are mentioned.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for what 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and key input. However, it does not describe the return format or error handling, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including an example. The description reinforces the parameter's role ('by playbook id') but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the full playbook details') and resource ('steps and coverage by playbook id'). It specifies what is included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openemis_list_playbooks which lists playbooks without details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from openemis_get.

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 when a playbook id is available and full details are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Sibling tool differentiation is implicit through context, not stated.

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