openemis_list_playbooks

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

No annotations provided; the description indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects. However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, or scope (e.g., whether the list is exhaustive or paginated).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant words. 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the fields returned (id, title, audience, domain), which is helpful. However, it omits any information on ordering, pagination, or error handling, which would enhance 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4; no additional parameter info needed.

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 ('List all available playbooks') and the returned fields (id, title, audience, domain). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openemis_get_playbook (for a single playbook) and openemis_list_domains (different resource).

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 use when a list of all playbooks is needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or complementary tools.

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