survey_agent_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the parameter flexibility (accepts id, slug, or URL) but doesn't describe any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what happens on invalid ID, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a simple get tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value—the first states what it does, the second clarifies a key detail about the parameter. 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 presence of rich output schema (not shown but indicated as 'has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. With only 1 required parameter and simple structure, the description mostly suffices but lacks fail behavior info and explicit read-only declaration.

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 must compensate. It adds that survey_id can be 'full id, public slug, or form URL,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, it doesn't specify the form URL format (e.g., must include prefix, HTTP vs HTTPS), and there's no explanation of how the tool differentiates between these input types.

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 tool retrieves survey DSL and metadata, and specifies that survey_id can be a full ID, public slug, or form URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like survey_agent_list_forms (list) and survey_validate_dsl (validate). However, the verb 'get' is somewhat generic and could be more specific about read-only nature.

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 you need survey DSL/metadata by accepting multiple ID formats. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like survey_get_dsl_rules or survey_agent_settings_get. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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