survey_get_dsl_rules

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only fetch operation, but it does not specify if the rules are cached, if authentication is required, or what happens if the server is unreachable. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but basic behavioral context is still missing.

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 sentence with 8 words, making it extremely concise. It front-loades the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by noting optional parameters or return format, but it remains minimal without 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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no required params, output schema present), the description is minimally complete for a read operation. However, it omits clarifying the format options and any server-side behavior (e.g., whether the rules are static or update dynamically). The output schema likely provides return structure, so the description does not need to explain that, but the lack of parameter context leaves gaps.

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 1 optional parameter ('format') with default 'markdown'. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by implying the tool provides survey DSL rules. However, it does not explain the 'format' parameter's purpose or allowed values (e.g., whether formats like 'json' are supported). The baseline is 3 due to low coverage, and the description barely adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch current Survey DSL parsing rules from the server' specifies a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Survey DSL parsing rules'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'survey_validate_dsl' that validate rules rather than fetch them. The title is null, but the description effectively conveys the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'survey_validate_dsl' or 'survey_create' may have overlapping contexts, but no exclusions or contextual hints are given. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description, which lacks explicit direction.

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