asc_listing_screenshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value beyond that by revealing that the tool baches requests via 'included resources' and that it returns delivery state, which is behavioral/payload context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The primary action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a valuable efficiency context without fluff.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, this description is complete: it names the resource, the scope ('on a version'), the included output detail ('delivery state'), and the batching behavior. The schema covers all three parameters, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents app, locale, and version. The description only loosely references locale and version ('per locale per set', 'on a version') without adding format or relationship details, so it does not meaningfully improve on the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('screenshot sets and screenshots on a version'), and adds the useful detail that each asset's delivery state is included. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like asc_upload_screenshot and asc_pricing_get because the action and resource are explicit.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any statement of when not to use it. The efficiency note about included resources implies a bulk-listing use case, but it does not tell an agent 'use this to inspect current screenshots' or 'use asc_upload_screenshot to modify them.'

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