ansible-playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that playbooks can be destructive, that network access may be required, or that execution can be long-running. While check/diff modes are listed, their purpose (dry-run) is not explained.

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 follows a clean structure: one-line purpose, bullet-style arg list, and a returns line. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, the Python docstring format (Args:, Returns:) is acceptable.

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 complexity (11 params, check/diff modes) and the presence of an output schema (return keys described), the description covers most aspects but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ansible installation) and error handling. It also omits the 'env' parameter entirely.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 10 of 11 parameters (missing env). Each explained parameter gets a brief, meaningful description, e.g., 'extra_vars: Dict of variables passed via --extra-vars.' This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 starts with 'Run an Ansible playbook,' which is a clear verb+resource. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ansible-ping (ping hosts) or validate-playbook (check syntax).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or limitations mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name.

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