ami_list_surveys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention potential side effects, return format, ordering, pagination, or any additional behavior. For a simple list, the lack of explicit read-only assurance is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No wasted words, and the core information is front-loaded. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 parameterless list tool, the description covers the essential purpose but omits behavioral context like whether it returns a count, supports filtering, or how 'where they are stored' is represented. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It is sufficient for a trivial tool, but leaves room for clarification about the return value shape.

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 schema trivially covers 100% of parameter documentation. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because there are none to describe. It does not detract from clarity.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('all submitted survey responses'), and an additional expectation ('where they are stored'). It is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ami_get_survey (single survey) and ami_submit_survey (submission) by focusing on listing all responses.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'all' implies a bulk operation, there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with other survey-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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