list_creatives

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it discloses no additional behavior such as pagination, default limits, or how optional filters affect results, so the description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource and endpoint. It wastes no words, though it is slightly underspecified; still, for a simple list tool, the brevity is largely appropriate.

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?

With output schema, read-only annotation, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable for a straightforward listing operation. However, it lacks usage context or exclusions, making it incomplete for a new agent unfamiliar with the API's conventions.

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 three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description itself mentions none of the parameters, but the schema fully compensates, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool lists creatives, with the endpoint GET /creatives confirming the resource. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the name 'list_creatives' and noun '소재 목록' clearly differentiate it from get_creative and other list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_creative for a single item or performance tools. The description offers no context about filtering or prerequisites.

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