list_broadcasts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool lists campaigns with status and send progress, without revealing pagination behavior, ordering, scope of campaigns returned, or any filtering semantics.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description conveys the core purpose and what information is surfaced. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around response shape, pagination, and the exact meaning of 'send progress', so it is adequate but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The schema description coverage is complete at 100%, and the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 action ('List') and resource ('campaigns'), and adds the output focus of status and send progress. It distinguishes from list_broadcast_recipients by focusing on campaigns rather than recipients, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools and uses 'campaigns' while the tool is named 'broadcasts'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_broadcast_recipients or list_emails, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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