list_creatives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read operation, but fails to mention any caveats such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the response includes full creative objects or just summaries. No context about rate limits or filtering is offered.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

As a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, but does not explain what is returned (e.g., array of creative objects or IDs) or how the 'all' scope interacts with pagination. Given the lack of an output schema, more detail would be helpful for an agent to set correct expectations.

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 has full coverage (100%) with descriptive parameter names and descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 image creatives' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (image creatives), and the modifier 'all' indicates the scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_video_creatives and list_all_creatives by explicitly limiting to image 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 tool is for listing image creatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_all_creatives or get_creative. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the resource type.

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