app_screenshot_sets_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the raw path. The GET prefix implies a read, but there is no mention of authentication requirements, pagination of included relationships, rate limits, or what happens for a missing id.

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 that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The same endpoint string is duplicated parenthetically, which is wasted tokens and not front-loaded with any useful information.

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 GET tool with 8 parameters, relationship includes, and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It leaves behavioral context such as auth, pagination, and error behavior entirely unspecified.

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 already documents all 8 parameters including the include and fields_* relationship options. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 essentially the endpoint path repeated twice: 'GET /v1/appScreenshotSets/{id}'. It technically identifies a verb (GET) and a resource (appScreenshotSets), but it restates the tool name and gives no plain-language explanation of what the call returns. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like app_screenshot_sets_app_screenshots_get_to_many_relationship or app_screenshot_sets_create_instance.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this fetches a single app screenshot set by id.

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