survey_skip

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the skip is 'for now', implying a temporary dismissal rather than a permanent opt-out. However, it does not explain side effects, such as whether the survey will reappear, or if any state is stored. For such a simple action, this level of transparency is adequate but not comprehensive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, which is concise, but it appears truncated—ending with 'doesn't want...'—leaving the thought incomplete. While brevity is a plus, the structural incompleteness suggests a lack of polish, preventing a higher score. It is not as concise as a fully formed, complete sentence would be.

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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, the target, and the motivating scenario. It doesn't need to explain return values or complex behaviors. The only minor gap is the absence of details on what happens after skipping, but for a simple 'skip', the description is complete enough.

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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none. It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because the schema fully defines the empty parameter set. Thus, the score aligns with the baseline.

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: 'Skips the short in-product survey Local MCP showed the user'. This is a specific verb (skip) applied to a distinct resource (the survey), and it inherently differentiates from the sibling tool 'survey_respond' by indicating a non-response action. The 'for now' qualifier adds temporary intent, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'use this when the user doesn't want...' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling 'survey_respond' is implied as the contrasting choice. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive, so it earns a 4.

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