apps__beta_feedback_crash_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds only the endpoint URL, not additional behavioral context like pagination behavior, response format, or rate limits. For a list tool with many filters, the description does not disclose typical usage constraints or output structure.

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 description is concise: one sentence plus the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing 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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and is a list operation with extensive filtering, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return structure, pagination, common filter combinations, or relationships to other data. For a complex tool, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all 12 parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. The endpoint URL hints that 'id' is the app's identifier, but that is already clear from the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'beta feedback crash submissions', and the scope 'belonging to an app'. It also includes the API endpoint for clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_feedback_crash_submissions__get (single item) and beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__list (different resource).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apps__beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__list or the individual get/delete versions. The only hint is 'belonging to an app', which is implicit. No exclusion criteria or conditions are mentioned.

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