ami_survey_status

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 communicates that this is a read-only-ish status check via 'Show', but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it cover potential requirements like having an active run or error behavior. The description adds no safety or side-effect disclosure beyond the word 'Show'.

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 front-loaded sentence efficiently communicates the resource and trims outputs, with no fluff. Every clause adds information and the description is easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is largely complete: it names all three output CPU dimensions. The gaps are small, mainly missing explicit run_id shape and any prerequisite such as a 'defined' active run.

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 schema only declares run_id as a string with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. 'For the active run' hints that run_id identifies a current run, but the description does not explicitly explain run_id's meaning, whether it is optional, or how the 'active run' is determined.

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 specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource ('current values collected for the active run') and elaborates the three key outputs: collected values, empty fields, and submission blockers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ami_get_survey (likely returns survey questions) and ami_submit_survey (performs the submission).

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 mention of 'what is blocking submission' implies this is for pre-submission status checks, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ami_get_survey or ami_submit_survey. There is no exclusionary or 'when not to use' guidance.

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