beta_feedback_screenshot_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 entire behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the resource is scoped to the caller's team, error behavior for unknown ids, or what the response body contains, for a tool with five parameters and no output schema.

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 not concise in the useful sense: the same endpoint string is duplicated back-to-back, which is pure redundancy rather than economy. There is no front-loaded purpose statement because there is no purpose statement at all.

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 five-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies zero of the context an agent needs: not the resource's meaning, not the sparse-fieldset/include semantics, not the return shape. It is completely inadequate beyond identifying the HTTP route.

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 id, include, and the three sparse-fieldset parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, but the baseline of 3 applies when the structured 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 HTTP method and URL path repeated verbatim, once inside the text and once in parentheses. It conveys only what the tool name 'get_instance' plus the resource name already imply, adding no explanation of what a beta feedback screenshot submission is or what retrieving one yields.

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 on when to fetch a single submission versus the sibling list tool apps_beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions_get_to_many_relationship, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid submission id from that listing. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is offered either.

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