survey_agent_scenarios_get

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (get) and resource type. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects, nor does it indicate authorization requirements or scope of results.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is arguably too terse given the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, but the structure itself is clean and waste-free.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description fails to explain what 'post-submit automation scenarios' are or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. For a simple getter with one parameter, the information is minimally adequate but lacks depth for confident agent use.

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 carries full burden for explaining the single parameter 'survey_id'. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name; it does not explain what constitutes a valid survey_id, how to obtain it, or its role in retrieving scenarios.

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 'Get post-submit automation scenarios' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('post-submit automation scenarios'), clearly indicating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'survey_agent_scenarios_save' but does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'survey_agent_get', which retrieves different data.

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 such as 'survey_agent_scenarios_save' or 'survey_agent_get'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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