apps__review_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the endpoint, such as pagination behavior, response shape, or any side effects. It essentially reiterates the tool's purpose without disclosing additional traits.

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 two short sentences, with the endpoint in brackets for clarity. Every element is functional, with no redundant or padding text.

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?

The tool is a list endpoint with no output schema and minimal description. While the schema and annotations provide operational details, the description lacks any mention of pagination, filtering capabilities, or the relationship to other review submission tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 each parameter (id, limit, include, next_url, filter_state, filter_platform, fields_reviewSubmissions) has a descriptive entry. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 clearly states 'List the review submissions belonging to an app', identifying the action (list) and scope (per app). The endpoint '[GET /v1/apps/{id}/reviewSubmissions]' reinforces the specific resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'review_submissions__list' which likely has a broader scope.

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 such as 'review_submissions__list' or 'review_submissions__get'. It implies usage through the phrase 'belonging to an app' but does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. There are no prerequisites or context about pagination or filtering.

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