ads_list_adsets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that parent_id can be either an ad account ID (act_...) or a campaign ID, which is critical behavior not evident from the schema. It also clarifies status_filter as an optional effective_status filter. No contradictory traits are mentioned.

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 concise sentences plus an args list. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and scope, the second elaborates on parameter semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the polymorphic parent_id and the optional status filter, which are the main behavioral nuances. It does not mention pagination or return format, but these are typical for list tools and the limit parameter is present in the schema. Overall, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for parent_id (explaining the two accepted ID types) and status_filter (effective_status filter). The limit parameter is not explained, but it is self-explanatory and has a default value in the schema, so the missing explanation is minor.

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 ad sets'), the resource ('ad sets'), and the scope ('under an ad account or under a specific campaign'). It distinguishes this list operation from related tools like ads_get_adset (single get) and ads_create_adset (create).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list ad sets under either an ad account or campaign. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and implied by the 'list' verb. There is no misleading guidance.

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