surveymonkey_list_collectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lists all collectors' signals a read-only operation and scopes it to a survey, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether only one page is returned, or any rate-limit considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and the main point is front-loaded: 'Lists all collectors for a survey.' The Args block is compact and readable, though it partially duplicates the input schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool is a simple listing operation with only three parameters and an output schema available, so the essentials are present. However, there is no guidance about alternatives, no mention of pagination semantics, and no behavioral disclosure beyond the one-line summary, leaving some gaps for a full selection decision.

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%, yet the description's Args section mostly restates the parameter names and titles: 'Survey ID', 'Page number', 'Results per page'. It adds defaults, but those are already in the schema. It does not clarify limits, formats, or how paging interacts with the returned list.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all collectors for a survey.' The word 'all' and the scope 'for a survey' clearly distinguish this from the sibling get_collector, which retrieves a single collector, and from create/update/delete collector tools.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to list collectors belonging to a survey. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the task-specific wording is enough for an agent to recognize when this tool applies.

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