beta_app_clip_invocations__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover.

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, consisting of one sentence plus the HTTP path. No superfluous information; every part adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it could mention that the response returns the invocation object and that the include parameter allows fetching related localizations.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Resource identifier.' and 'comma-separated list of relationships to include'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 explicitly states 'Read one beta App Clip invocation by ID', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or update beta app clip invocations.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve a specific invocation by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list or create). No exclusions or context for when-not-to-use is provided.

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