survey_validate_dsl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('without saving'), which is positive. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires specific permissions, returned data format, side effects, or error behavior. With a zero-annotation tool, more transparency would be warranted, making 3 a middle score.

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 with no filler words. Every word serves a purpose: 'Validate' (action), 'Survey DSL' (subject), 'without saving' (scope). Ideal conciseness.

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 1-parameter simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which reduces need to document return values), the description is largely complete. It lacks explanation of DSL format, but for a single-string validation tool, this is a minor gap. The description provides enough for an agent to distinguish it from survey_create or survey_agent_skill.

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?

There is 0% schema description coverage, but the tool has only 1 parameter ('dsl'). The description does not explain the expected format of the DSL string (e.g., does it accept JSON, XML, or plain text? What constitutes valid DSL?). Since the schema provides no description at all, the tool description should compensate. However, the brevity of the parameter set (only 1) makes the omission less critical. Score 4 for almost adequate given the simplicity, but lacking format details.

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 'Validate Survey DSL without saving' clearly states the action (validate) and the subject (Survey DSL), and explicitly distinguishes from write/save operations. It provides a specific verb and resource that differentiates it from sibling tools like survey_create or survey_agent_skill.

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 this tool should be used when validation is needed without persistence, which is evident from 'without saving'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to not use this tool (e.g., for syntax errors vs semantic checks), nor does it reference alternatives. The lack of context about when validation is required or what constitutes success is a gap.

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