run_ansible_playbook

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, covering basic safety. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., execution time, error handling, or confirmation need). It is adequate but not enhanced beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key usage constraints without losing conciseness.

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 (7 params, nested objects, no output schema, important behavioral traits), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the meaning of 'existing' playbook, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

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 for all 7 parameters. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 'Run an existing Ansible playbook for a service' clearly states the action (run) and resource (existing Ansible playbook for a service). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'check_ansible_service' (checking status) or 'deploy_infrastructure' (more general). However, it could be more specific about what 'for a service' entails.

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 siblings such as 'check_ansible_service' or 'deploy_infrastructure'. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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