survey_respond

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (submitting answers) but does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., a pending survey), idempotency, failure modes, or side effects. For a simple action this is acceptable 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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Submits the user's answers to the short in-product survey Local MCP just showed them.' Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the action and the context ('just showed them'), though it could more explicitly state that the user must have been shown the survey or that the call will fail if no survey is pending. The implied prerequisite is present but not fully formalized.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the action without needing to explain any parameters since there are none. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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's function: 'Submits the user's answers to the short in-product survey Local MCP just showed them.' It identifies a specific verb ('submits'), a resource ('answers'), and a context (the survey just shown), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'survey_skip' which would handle skipping instead of responding.

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 the appropriate usage context: it should be used after Local MCP shows a survey and the user has answers to submit. The phrase 'just showed them' distinguishes it from skipping (survey_skip), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use this tool beyond that implied timing, so a small gap remains.

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