list_new_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that blacklists are skipped, active maps are deduplicated, and the results incorporate the echocn curated list. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss side effects or error handling, which are less relevant for a read-only list operation.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds key filtering behavior. Every word earns its place without 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?

This is a simple list tool with only two optional parameters and an existing output schema. The description, combined with the schema, fully covers what the tool does, how results are filtered, and what parameters are available. There are no critical gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 already provides full documentation for both parameters ('days' and 'limit') with defaults, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that 'days' corresponds to the 'N' in the description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('列出' / list), the resource ('最近 N 天新增的战役地图' / campaign maps newly added in the last N days), and the scope ('增量发现' / incremental discovery). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_campaigns by highlighting its incremental, blacklist-skipping, and deduplicating behavior.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to discover campaign maps added within a recent time window. It implies this is for incremental discovery rather than general search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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