app_previews_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails: it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior, whether the returned resource is scoped to a set, or any side effects. A bare URL string adds zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness, and the identical route is printed twice in immediate succession, which is pure waste. There is no front-loaded purpose statement for an agent to anchor on.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how include/fields shape the response. None of that is present.

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% with all four parameters (id, include, fields_appPreviews, fields_appPreviewSets) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the id format or the sparse-fieldset/include semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/appPreviews/{id}' duplicated in parentheses, which merely restates the tool name and title with no added meaning. It does imply a single-resource retrieval of an app preview, but gives no verb-and-resource framing that distinguishes it from siblings like app_preview_sets_get_instance or app_previews_create_instance beyond the name itself.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as app_preview_sets_app_previews_get_to_many_related or app_previews_update_instance. The GET path weakly implies a read-by-id operation, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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