List Campaigns

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 the useful 'authenticated workspace' scoping constraint but says nothing about result volume, whether limit/offset are honored, or what 'sync' does. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the purpose clause trailing rather than leading. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, four parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and pagination semantics for limit/offset are unexplained. The description covers why to call the tool but leaves an agent guessing how to call it correctly, which is inadequate for a four-parameter listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters (sync, limit, offset, status) gets a single word of explanation in the description. The only identifier mentioned, campaign_id, is not a parameter at all but a field in the result. The description therefore does nothing to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 and resource ('List campaigns') and scopes it to 'the authenticated workspace', which separates it from both list_workspaces and the single-campaign get_campaign. It also names the downstream use (choosing a campaign_id), so the agent understands the output's role. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings that also enumerate campaigns, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: before save_search_results_to_campaign, so the agent knows this is a prerequisite lookup. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., when a campaign_id is already known and get_campaign should be called instead), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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