survey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool reads a live system using credentials already present on the machine, and that it returns YAML rather than writing a file, establishing a read-only, non-destructive profile. It stops short of stating failure behavior, credential prerequisites, or latency for live API calls.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the selection rationale and the operational profile. No filler; every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and all three parameters are documented. Combined with the safety and credential disclosure, an agent has nearly everything needed; only credential setup and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 100%, including per-field notes for ref, surveyor, name, and version, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the merge semantic implicitly (multiple surveys combine into one descriptor) but nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and outcome — discover the real composition of a system (namespaces, images and digests, repos) and return a Saga descriptor. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_surveyors, propose_saga, and get_saga_schema, since it produces a descriptor from live observation rather than from a provided schema.

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?

"Prefer this over writing a descriptor from the schema" gives an explicit alternative and the reason to choose this tool (real namespaces, images, and digests cannot be guessed). It lacks an explicit when-not or the prerequisite step of calling list_surveyors first to learn surveyor names, which is only implied via the schema.

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