list_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results beyond parameter defaults. The read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose in both Chinese and English. The Args section is well-structured. The redundant Chinese line slightly reduces efficiency but does not detract significantly.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return structure (e.g., list of material objects, pagination metadata). It does not, leaving the agent to infer the response format.

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 clear, human-readable explanations for all four parameters (advertiser_id, page, page_size, material_type), adding value beyond the bare schema. It includes defaults, max values, and example filter values.

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 tool lists materials in the creative library under an advertiser account, with an optional filter by material type. This specific verb-resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like list_ads or list_campaigns.

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 for listing creative materials but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks 'when-not' guidance.

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