ads_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 some behavioral traits: account_id accepts with or without 'act_' prefix, status_filter defaults to all, and limit has a max of 100 with cursor pagination. However, it does not describe auth requirements, error behavior, return format, or other side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact and well-structured, with a one-line purpose sentence followed by a clear Args list. Each parameter explanation is concise and informative. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return values and edge cases. While the parameter semantics are well handled, the description does not state what the response contains (e.g., list of campaign objects, fields included) nor error conditions. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates excellently by explaining each parameter with practical details. It clarifies the account_id prefix handling, lists possible effective_status values, and specifies the limit max and pagination mechanism. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal type and default info.

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 of an ad account', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns') with a defined scope ('ad account'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ads_get_campaign (singular) and ads_list_adsets (different entity).

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 implies usage for listing campaigns but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or what not to use it for. No explicit exclusions or comparisons are made, so guidance is limited to the inherent meaning of the tool name.

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