list_screenshot_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default filtering, that app_version is ignored when build_id is set, and what fields are returned. However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise with 5 sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers defaults, filtering, and output content well. It could mention pagination (limit) and sorting more explicitly, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the default behavior of app_version and its interaction with build_id. It also summarizes output fields beyond the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 lists TestFlight screenshot feedback submissions, specifying the included fields (comment, screenshot URLs, device/OS, tester, build). It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'screenshot feedback', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_screenshot_feedback'.

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 explains default behavior (only latest pre-release version returned) and filtering options (app_version, build_id, etc.). It provides clear context on when to use parameters, but does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or compare with alternatives like get_screenshot_feedback.

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