safe_mind_get_survey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (status, timeframe, participation link), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior when surveyId is invalid or missing, or whether the call has side effects. For an unannotated tool this is thin.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness that earns the score is the same quality that leaves semantic gaps.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral source, and it only lists three returned fields. It omits how to acquire a surveyId, error behavior, and any permission context, so it is insufficient for a tool an agent must call with a required identifier.

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 single surveyId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate — it never states whether surveyId is an opaque ID, a slug, or a name, nor how the agent should obtain one. Low coverage plus no compensating text leaves the parameter's semantics undefined.

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?

"Show one survey" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of status/timeframe/participation link clarifies what 'one survey' means. It implicitly contrasts with the list operation, but never names safe_mind_list_surveys as the alternative, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to safe_mind_list_surveys for discovering survey IDs. The agent must infer that this is the single-record lookup tool purely from the name.

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