apps__beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as parial behavior, rate limits, or that the list can be filtered. Since annotations cover the key behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description is acceptable but does not add extra value.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose, followed by an API path. It is concise but offers no additional structure or front-loading of critical context. It earns its place for purpose clarity but could be more informative about results or parameters in the same space.

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 list operation with a rich input schema and good annotations, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and the required ID. However, it does not mention that the output might be paginated, or what the default response includes. Given the schema covers parameters well and no output schema exists, the description is complete enough for a basic list tool, but not excellent.

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 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description has no parameter-specific information. The baseline is a score of 3 given high coverage, and the description does not add any additional meaning. The minimal description is sufficient, but does not elevate above the baseline.

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 states 'List the beta feedback screenshot submissions belonging to an app.' The verb 'list' is specific, 'beta feedback screenshot submissions' is the resource, and 'belonging to an app' clarifies the scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__delete' and 'beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__get'. A slight deduction for not mentioning that it returns a paginated 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. In the context of siblings like 'beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__delete' and 'beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__get', the name and verb already imply usage for listing, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given. The description is minimal but sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it based on the list verb.

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