beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__get

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

The description's 'Read' aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It adds the endpoint URL but no additional behavioral context such as response size or pagination. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description is sufficient but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague content.

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 straightforward single-get tool with strong annotations and fully described schema, this description is complete enough. The fields parameter enumerates possible return fields, removing the need for a detailed return-value explanation. The sibling list tool provides context for when to use this getter.

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?

The description provides no parameter details, but schema coverage is 100% with thorough descriptions for id, include, and fields_betaFeedbackScreenshotSubmissions. Since the schema explains the ID source and relationship/field selection trade-offs, the description adds nothing extra.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('one beta feedback screenshot submission by ID'). It distinguishes from the list sibling by specifying single-resource retrieval via ID.

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 use when you have an ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The schema's id description references the matching list call, but the description itself lacks such guidance.

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