get_custom_pixels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not specify what a successful response looks like, whether any special permissions are needed, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. For a fetch operation without an output schema, this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks important context. It does not mention that the tool returns a list of pixels, nor does it reference sibling tools or provide any usage context. The absent output schema and annotations further reduce completeness, but the schema richness partially compensates.

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 input schema covers both parameters (after, first) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. Since the schema already explains the parameters clearly, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('custom pixels configured for the store'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_pixels or get_custom_pixel, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for different pixel querying needs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer get_custom_pixels over get_pixels or get_custom_pixel, nor any exclusion criteria. This is a clear gap for a tool within a large sibling family.

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