snapchat get creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add genuine context: results are page-based with a next_cursor, and records are returned in full native configuration rather than normalized. It stops short of saying anything about the account-level scope enforcement or ordering, so a 3 fits.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability and pagination contract front-loaded; nothing is padded. The ad-squad glossary sentence is the one weak element — it earns little place in a creatives listing definition.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations plus full schema coverage, the description carries little burden and covers the essentials (scope, pagination, native passthrough). What is missing is the sibling disambiguation against snapchat_list_ad_creatives, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor and adAccountId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that pagination flows through next_cursor and that results are scoped to the selected account, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Snapchat creatives") scoped to the selected account, which is enough for an agent to know what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling snapchat_list_ad_creatives, which reads as an almost identical capability, so the agent cannot confidently pick between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, snapchat_list_ad_creatives. The only supplementary sentence ("An ad squad is an ad group/ad set") is terminology trivia that does not influence tool selection at all.

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