meta_ads_split_tests_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is read-only and lists the exact fields returned, including the note about internal naming ('Studies'). It lacks details on pagination or default behavior over all studies, but for a list operation the provided transparency is solid.

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 three sentences with a clear progression: purpose, output fields, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no filler, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers the essential context: what it lists, what it returns, that it's read-only, and how it fits into the broader workflow. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% parameter description coverage for both limit and account_id, including format, defaults, and constraints. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage, so no penalty or bonus is warranted.

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 tool lists Split Tests, defines the domain (A/B Tests, internally Studies), specifies the returned fields (id, name, status, dates, cell summary), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (meta_ads_split_tests_get, meta_ads_split_tests_end). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find a study_id before pulling detailed results via meta_ads_split_tests_get or ending via meta_ads_split_tests_end.' It also marks the operation as read-only, giving clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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