list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all campaigns' indicates a read operation but says nothing about return format, pagination, ordering, or whether any filtering occurs. The word 'all' adds some scope information, but the behavior is minimally disclosed.

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?

Three words with no wasted content and the key action is front-loaded. For a zero-parameter, straightforward listing tool, this is appropriately concise rather than under-specified.

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 simple, no-argument list operation, the description is nearly complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return shape and potential pagination, but the lack of parameters and the clear scope keep these from being significant.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters that do not exist.

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?

'List all campaigns' states a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'all' clarifies the scope. It is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling list_* tools by naming the exact resource. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 when the agent needs the full set of campaigns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since there is no get_campaign sibling, the intended use is fairly obvious, but the guidance is still only implied.

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