beta_feedback_crash_submissions_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The GET verb weakly implies a read-only fetch, but there is no mention of authentication needs, pagination, error behavior for missing ids, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 text is short, but the parenthetical repetition of the identical path string is pure waste. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

A five-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no plain-language description leaves the agent with almost nothing. The description should at minimum explain what the resource is and how the sparse-fieldset and include parameters 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% and every parameter (id, include, fields_builds, fields_betaTesters, fields_betaFeedbackCrashSubmissions) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 operation identifier restated verbatim, including a redundant duplicate in parentheses. The HTTP path does weakly signal 'fetch one beta feedback crash submission by id', but there is no plain-language statement of purpose and no differentiation from siblings like beta_feedback_crash_submissions_delete_instance or the crash_log relationship tools.

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. Nothing tells the agent that this fetches a single submission rather than the collection (apps_beta_feedback_crash_submissions_get_to_many_related) or the crash log sub-resource.

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