surveymonkey_list_collector_messages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Lists,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, discuss required permissions, error behavior for invalid/non-email collectors, or any other behavioral constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose line followed by a parameter list. It avoids fluff and front-loads the main action. The defaults are repeated from the schema, which is slightly redundant, but the arg explanations are necessary given the empty schema descriptions.

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?

This is a simple list operation with an output schema already defined, so return values are covered. The description includes the required parameter, the email-collector constraint, and pagination options. Missing are explicit usage alternatives and a clear read-only statement, but these are partially covered by the word 'Lists' and the overall simplicity of the tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: collector_id is a Collector ID that must be of type email, and page/per_page are described with their defaults. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially the critical email-type constraint.

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 opens with 'Lists email messages for a collector,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_collectors and list_collector_recipients by specifying 'email messages' and the email-type collector constraint.

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 a clear context—use this when you need email messages for a collector—and a precondition ('must be of type email'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_collector_recipients or send_collector_message.

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