survey_agent_list_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that archived surveys are hidden unless include_archived is true, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, performance characteristics, or pagination details.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, each adding value: the first identifies the action and scope, the second clarifies the default behavior regarding archived surveys. There is no redundancy or extra verbiage.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema present, no nested objects), the description covers the key functionality and the single parameter's effect. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It does not address pagination or ordering, but for a simple list with one parameter, this feels sufficient.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (include_archived) with default false and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions that 'archived hidden unless include_archived', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/boolean/default, explaining the parameter's effect. With only one parameter and some explanation, the score is slightly above baseline, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List surveys for this API token (scoped by group_id)' which provides a specific verb ('list') and resource ('surveys') along with implicit scoping. It differentiates from siblings like 'survey_create' by indicating read-only intent, and from other list tools by specifying the API token/group_id scope.

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 it lists surveys for the current API token, which provides context about when to use it (to see available surveys). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling survey tools (like survey_get_dsl_rules or survey_agent_get), leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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