list_audio_creatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all' but fails to mention that pagination via limit/offset constrains the result set, which could mislead an agent into expecting every creative in one response. It also omits details about read-only guarantees, response format, or potential filtering, making the behavior partially opaque.

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, four-word sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly concise for a simple list operation.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the claim of 'all' without acknowledging pagination creates a subtle gap, and there is no mention of default ordering or response fields. The lack of any behavioral context or alternative tool references makes it incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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%, with limit and offset clearly described as pagination controls. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'all', which slightly conflicts with the pagination parameters but does not degrade the parameter understanding. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 'List all audio creatives' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_creatives or list_video_creatives. The scope ('audio') is explicit, and the intent is unambiguous.

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 list_creatives, list_video_creatives, or get_audio_creative. The context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit differentiation or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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