survey_respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool shows or submits a survey, but it does not disclose what side effects occur (e.g., interrupting the user, opening UI, permanently submitting responses), whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if no survey is assigned. This is insufficient for a tool that appears to have user-facing effects.

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 that is immediately informative and front-loads the core action. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning the highest score for 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description leaves critical gaps: it does not clarify what triggers a show vs. submit, how the survey content is determined, or the expected outcome of calling the tool. The presence of the sibling 'survey_skip' suggests a workflow, but the description does not explain this tool's role in it, making the overall context incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool shows or submits an in-product survey assigned to the machine. It names the specific resource (survey) and indicates two possible actions. However, the dual verb 'shows or submits' is somewhat ambiguous about which action occurs in a given call, and no explicit distinction from the sibling 'survey_skip' is made, though the resource is clearly identified.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as survey_skip. The description does not specify scenarios where showing vs. submitting is appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions like the presence of a pending survey. The context is minimal and left entirely to inference.

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