list_all_creatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and the scope (all types), but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields are returned. The schema mentions limit/offset, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and information-dense. It includes the key scope and types with no filler words, earning a perfect score.

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 list tool with only two optional params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core behavior and scope, but it does not explicitly mention that results are paginated or that this is a read-only operation. Still, the schema supplies enough context, so only a slight deduction is warranted.

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 coverage is 100% as both 'limit' and 'offset' have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'creatives', and explicitly scopes it to 'all types (image, rich media, video, audio)'. This distinguishes it from type-specific siblings like list_video_creatives and list_audio_creatives, as well as from the more general list_creatives.

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 this is the tool to use when you need creatives across multiple types, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context but no exclusions or direct comparison with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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