meta_get_pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple list action by promising 'actionable warnings for permission-limited edges', which is valuable and non-obvious. It does not mention pagination or output details, but the core partial-access warning behavior is disclosed.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the key behavioral nuance about warnings. No wasted words.

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?

The description gives the essential scope and a useful output signal, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so more context would help: pagination behavior, how the two ID parameters interact, and when this tool should be preferred over related asset-listing tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 80%, so the parameters are mostly self-documenting. The description adds conceptual context by mapping pixels/datasets to ad account or Business Manager, which aligns with adAccountId and businessId, but it does not add meaningful per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb 'List' and the resource ('pixels and datasets'), and scopes it to 'an ad account or Business Manager'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other asset types, even without naming an alternative.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when listing pixels or datasets from an ad account or Business Manager. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource focus is specific enough to guide selection.

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