adtech_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('读') and notes tenant isolation, which are important behavioral traits. However, it omits other details like output format or error behavior, so it is not maximally transparent.

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, concise sentence that conveys the key points without superfluous words. It is well-structured for a simple read operation.

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 straightforward list operation with no parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the operation, the resource, the source, and the tenant isolation. It does not describe the return value, but this is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and none are mentioned.

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 a specific action ('列出 campaign') and identifies the resource as campaigns. It also indicates the operation is read-only ('读'), and the source ('ad-tech-labs media-adapter') distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform write operations on campaigns or operate on other resources.

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 it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as adtech_set_campaign_status or lpb_list_pages. The mention of tenant isolation and source provides context, but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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