List Campaign Email Waves

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 two useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are bounded, and the payload includes delivery state counts. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or default page size behavior, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is arguably the source of the missing usage and parameter detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and covered safety annotations, the description gives the essential gist plus a hint at return contents (delivery state counts). It is still short of complete: no guidance on paging through results, result ordering, or when to prefer this over the singular get_campaign_email_wave.

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 carries the full burden. It alludes to the state enum ('active/recent') and boundedness (limit), but never explains the combined 'active,recent' value, the 1-100 limit range, the default of 20, or what campaign_id identifies. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (read/list) plus the resource (campaign email waves) and narrows scope to 'bounded active/recent'. This distinguishes it reasonably from cancel_campaign_email_wave and retry_campaign_email_wave, but it never explicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_campaign_email_wave, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to inference from the name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'bounded active/recent' hints at the intended scope, but an agent must guess whether to call this or get_campaign_email_wave for a single wave.

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