mojomo_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY requirement and an epistemic-honesty expectation ('say plainly what you could not verify'), plus the fact that selling is not the goal. It does not state read/write behavior, side effects, return format, rate limits, or pagination, which are meaningful gaps without annotations.

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 four short sentences and avoids bloat. The auth requirement and task framing are present, though the opening sentence is somewhat vague and the operational purpose is not front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies auth context and behavioral framing. It still omits what the tool returns (a campaign list? a feed? individual briefs?) and how results should be consumed, which leaves an agent without enough operational context.

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 input schema is an empty object with 100% description coverage. The description adds relevant auth context but no parameter semantics are needed, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource as campaigns/products and services and frames the agent's task as judging whether they are worth the human's attention. However, it never states the operation clearly: it does not say whether it lists campaigns, opens one, or returns a feed. It also does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as mojomo_assess_campaign or mojomo_campaign_brief.

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 routing to alternatives. The sentence 'You are not asked to sell anything' sets a stance but does not tell the agent when to call this rather than mojomo_assess_campaign, mojomo_campaign_brief, or mojomo_offers.

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