vast42_list_interactive_creative_files

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 only says 'List all' without revealing nuances such as pagination behavior, whether results are scoped to a particular advertiser/workspace, or any access requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and no details about response characteristics are provided.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('List all', 'VAST 4.2', 'interactive creative files') contributes to identifying the tool's purpose, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 self-explanatory parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of pagination semantics or return format, and without an output schema the agent is left guessing about the response structure. It does convey the scoping constraint ('all'), which is useful, but more detail on behavior would improve completeness.

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 schema documents both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('List all') and the specific resource ('VAST 4.2 interactive creative files'), making it distinct from sibling tools like vast42_list_ads or vast42_list_creatives. It also aligns with the naming pattern of other vast42 list tools, unambiguously indicating this is the enumeration operation for interactive creative files.

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 such as vast42_get_interactive_creative_file or the create/update/delete counterparts. While the name implies it is for listing, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over other tools or any exclusions.

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