list_interviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context about collected/in-progress cases and the caveat that filter availability depends on the Headquarters build. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, permissions, rate limits, or the response envelope, which are relevant for a list operation with no output schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context about the interview set and filter variability without repetition.

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?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonably complete picture: what is listed, what fields are present, and a key caveat about filter support. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or return structure, but the schema covers limit/offset and the description covers the item contents, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general caveat about filter availability depending on the build; the schema already documents limit, offset, status, questionnaire_identity, and query. It does not enrich understanding of the 'profile' parameter or the advanced query object beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Survey Solutions interviews'), and a scope ('active workspace interview list endpoint'). It also describes the content returned (ID/key/status/responsible user/history). It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the distinction from get_interview_details and list_assignments is reasonably inferable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_assignments, get_interview_details, or get_interview_history. It mentions that filters depend on the Headquarters build, but does not state when this tool is the right choice or when an alternative should be selected.

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