캠페인 목록 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds useful domain context (what a campaign is, the linkage to list_adgroups) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return format.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then domain definition, then the practical linkage to a sibling tool. No filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and full safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note about whether results are paginated or ordered, but the essentials are covered.

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 the schema fully documents customerId (with the NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID fallback) and campaignIds (max 100, full list if omitted). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a list of campaigns for an ad account and defines what a campaign is (top-level unit managing ad type and budget). Distinguishes from get_campaign (singular) by scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's mention that the returned nccCampaignId feeds into list_adgroups, but it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not conditions, nor name sibling tools directly.

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