list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('List') and specifies the return fields (IDs, names, status, budget), which helps understand behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both carrying essential information. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, while the second provides usage guidelines. There is zero wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description focuses appropriately on purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It covers the essential context for a simple listing tool with one parameter. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like pagination or rate limits, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides crucial semantic context for the single parameter: 'account_id comes from get_my_accounts' explains where to obtain this value and establishes a dependency. This adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema type, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 action ('List all campaigns'), resource ('for a Meta ad account'), and scope ('with their IDs, names, status, and budget'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_campaign_ads by specifying this tool provides campaign IDs for use in that sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'account_id comes from get_my_accounts' establishes a prerequisite dependency. It also specifies when to use alternatives: 'Use campaign IDs from this response in analyze_campaign_ads' directs users to the appropriate sibling tool for deeper analysis.

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