apps__beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or response structure), but the annotation coverage is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one functional sentence and the HTTP path. No unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

While the description specifies what the tool does, it lacks context about common use cases (e.g., retrieving specific testers' screenshots) and does not explain how to leverage the many filter parameters. Given the complexity (12 parameters), the description could be more helpful.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('beta feedback screenshot submissions'), and the scope ('belonging to an app'). The HTTP path is provided for reference. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like 'apps__beta_feedback_crash_submissions__list'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., filtering specific builds or testers). The description does not mention any conditions or prerequisites beyond the required app id.

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