list_questionnaires

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and scopes it to 'imported' questionnaires, but it does not describe output structure, ordering, pagination, or whether archived/draft versions are included.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation. The versioning explanation earns its place by giving the agent a reason why the listing matters, with no wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter, the description plus schema likely suffice for basic invocation. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete about what each returned version entry contains or how the optional profile affects results.

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 100%, so the one optional 'profile' parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how the profile affects results, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'List imported questionnaires and versions.' This clearly identifies the tool's core function and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from version-related siblings like compare_questionnaire_versions or export_all_questionnaire_versions.

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 second sentence provides useful context: versioning matters because fieldwork changes create new versions with different schemas. This implies the tool is useful for discovering available versions before version-sensitive operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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