export_survey_participant_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses error behavior (returns error if surveys not enabled or instrument not a survey) and return format (JSON array). This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention more about data fields 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear main sentence, followed by preconditions, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 moderately simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, parameter semantics, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains that 'instrument' is the internal name and 'event' is for longitudinal projects only, providing meaning beyond the bare schema. This is sufficient but could be slightly more detailed.

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 exports a list of survey participants for an instrument, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_survey_link and export_records by focusing on participant list export.

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 clear context on when the tool works (instrument must be enabled as a survey) and mentions error conditions for when it won't. It also specifies that the event parameter is for longitudinal projects only, which helps in selecting appropriate use cases.

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