list_phishing_campaign_attempts

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 states the API call and parameter placement, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The name 'list' implies non-destructive, but the description does not explicitly add any behavioral context beyond that.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides a compact routing hint. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits essential context like whether phishingCampaignId is required (likely yes, but not stated), potential error conditions, or how this tool fits among the many sibling tools. While it covers the basic how-to, an agent might struggle to use it correctly without knowing that the path parameter is mandatory. The presence of the output schema raises the baseline, but the missing required-parameter note and lack of alternative guidance leave gaps.

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 partially does by explaining that path_params hold route IDs and query holds filtering/pagination/sorting/include values. This adds meaning to the otherwise opaque schema, but it does not enumerate specific keys or formats, leaving the agent to infer the exact parameter structure. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 phishing attempts) and the resource (a campaign), and distinguishes from siblings like list_phishing_campaigns (lists campaigns) and list_phishing_campaign_scenario_attempts (attempts for a scenario) by specifying 'for a campaign'. The API endpoint is provided, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 practical usage instructions: 'Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.' This tells the agent where to place different kinds of input. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to prefer this one over, say, list_phishing_campaign_scenario_attempts. The context is implied but not explicit.

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