ghl_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'List all campaigns' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, authentication requirements, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence: 'List all campaigns in the GHL location.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not clarify the difference between 'campaigns' and 'email campaigns' among siblings, nor does it provide any details about the returned data or behavioral constraints. An agent may struggle to select the correct tool without additional 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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'status' with 'Filter by status (active, paused, etc.)'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns') with a clear scope ('in the GHL location'). It is clear in what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'ghl_get_email_campaigns', which could cause confusion.

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 that this tool should be used when you need to list campaigns, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_get_email_campaigns. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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