app_screenshots_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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, error behavior, or the fact that 'include' and 'fields_*' alter the response shape. The only hint of read semantics comes from the word GET, which is already implied by the tool name.

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 the parenthetical repetition of the identical route is pure waste with zero informational content, and there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of sparse-fieldset or relationship-inclusion behavior, the description is far too thin for a four-parameter resource-fetch tool. An agent cannot determine what it gets back or how to shape the response.

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 all four parameters (id, include, fields_appScreenshots, fields_appScreenshotSets) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, which meets the baseline 3 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 nothing more than the tool name rendered as an HTTP route, repeated twice in parentheses. It restates the identifier rather than explaining that this retrieves a single app screenshot resource, and it draws no distinction from siblings such as app_screenshot_sets_get_instance or app_screenshots_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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling set/collection or relationship tools that also expose screenshots.

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