safe_mind_list_surveys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it declares 'Read-only', discloses the auth requirement and the account/company scoping ('Acts on the company of the account behind the key'), and lists the result fields. The only meaningful gap is that it says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether closed/archived surveys are always 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then each following sentence adds distinct value (field list, read-only, routing, auth, scope). The enumerated field list is long, but it is justified because there is no output schema; it could still be trimmed or bulleted for scannability.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, title, status enum values, dates, limits, anonymity threshold, links). Combined with auth, scope, ordering, and downstream routing, an agent has everything needed to call this zero-parameter tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. It correctly avoids describing nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all surveys of the company') and immediately narrows scope with ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming safe_mind_get_survey and safe_mind_get_analytics as consumers, so an agent can place it without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it to find the surveyId needed by safe_mind_get_survey and safe_mind_get_analytics' tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right first step versus the detail/analytics tools. The prerequisite (API key via SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or safe_mind_get_api_key) is stated rather than inferred.

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