Connect to LimeSurvey

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by explaining why: it opens and caches a session, a state-creating side effect that justifies the non-read-only, non-idempotent profile. It also clarifies that the session key is never exposed to the caller, which is useful context 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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no wasted prose. The sentence restating the RPC method name is marginally redundant with the tool name but aids mapping to LimeSurvey's API.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the caching/auth context. The only real gap is sequencing guidance relative to the other authenticated tools, which is minor for a connect operation.

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 100% for the single `response_format` parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for that parameter; its only parameter-adjacent value is clarifying that no session-key argument is required, which is mildly useful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open and cache an authenticated RemoteControl session,' and maps it to the underlying `get_session_key` RPC method. It is clearly distinct from the many survey/participant tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name `limesurvey_release_session_key` as the counterpart operation.

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?

It provides a concrete directive ('do not provide a session key') and states the authentication source (configured service account), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to invoke this relative to other tools or that it is a prerequisite for authenticated operations, leaving sequencing to inference.

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