List Campaign Creator Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only metadata is returned (not file content) and that results are scoped to a single creator, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of results.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, zero schema coverage on four parameters, and pagination unmentioned, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot tell what fields come back or how to page through results.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'One creator' loosely maps to campaign_creator_id, but campaign_id, limit and offset are never explained, leaving pagination semantics undocumented anywhere.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus a concrete resource (contract and draft/final review file metadata) and a scope (one creator), which separates it from download/remove file siblings. It is slightly at odds with the tool name 'list' since no listing/pagination behavior is implied.

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?

No statement of when to use this rather than get_campaign_file_download, get_campaign_creator_import_results, or other file siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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