ami_get_survey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does useful work by disclosing what the tool returns and the actionable instruction about which fields the user must answer. It clearly frames this as a retrieval operation, though it does not explicitly say there are no side effects.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes the key details of the returned content. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause 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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned and what the user should do with it. It could be slightly stronger by noting that this is a read-only operation or how it relates to the survey workflow, but the core calling context is covered.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is unambiguous. No additional parameter information is required.

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 clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('the survey definition') along with its contents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning fields and how they are obtained, though the reference to 'Collection_Inventory.csv' assumes context and could be more self-contained.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ami_get_instructions, ami_survey_begin, or ami_survey_status. The intended use is implied—obtain survey definition before answering—but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.

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