list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), the presence of counters, and the filter capability. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, but the verb 'list' implies a read operation. It also mentions pagination parameters (limit, cursor) implicitly through the schema.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose and ordering; the second gives a concrete usage example. 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description mentions 'status + counters' but does not detail the counters or the full response shape. It also doesn't explain pagination behavior beyond schema parameters. However, for a simple list tool with high schema coverage, it is fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the status filter use case ('pending_approval campaigns waiting on a human') and reinforces the limit default/max. The cursory explanation for sender is not in description but in schema. Overall, it provides meaningful context 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 'List campaigns' with the verb 'list' and resource 'campaigns', and distinguishes campaigns as 'many-recipient sends' from other tools like list_templates or send_email. It also mentions the output includes status and counters, and provides a concrete example (pending_approval).

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 gives a clear use case: filter by status to find pending_approval campaigns. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to sibling tools like get_campaign (single campaign) or search functionality. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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