walk_playbook

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

No annotations provided, but the description adequately discloses that the tool retrieves playbook data without side effects. It does not specify authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the transparency is sufficient.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, uses a bullet list for playbooks, and every sentence adds necessary information. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the structure of the data returned. No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions. The description adds extra context: explains the playbook structure (3 phases, 12 gates) and elaborates on the playbook parameter with real-world transformations. Adds value beyond the schema.

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 it returns a structured 90-day playbook or a specific week/gate, and lists available playbooks with context. It distinguishes from siblings like classify_use_case and crosswalk.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to walk a user through implementation sequentially, or to extract a specific gate's requirements.' It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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