list_campaigns

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return fields (state and progress) and states a monitoring use case. However, the phrase 'List all' conflicts with the existence of a limit parameter with default 20, which is never mentioned. This omission leaves pagination and default behavior ambiguous, a significant transparency gap.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then return details, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or repetition. It is easy to scan and clearly organized.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present), and the description covers return values and use cases. However, the 'all' vs limit mismatch is not resolved, and the output schema's actual fields are not described (though the presence of an output schema lowers that burden). Overall, it is mostly complete but leaves a critical behavioral ambiguity.

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 only parameter, limit, is completely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. An AI agent is left to guess whether limit controls page size, max results, or something else. This is a major gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all outbound campaigns with current status and progress.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get_campaign (which retrieves a single campaign) and lifecycle tools (start/pause/stop) by focusing on listing and monitoring. Enumerating campaign states (draft, running, paused, completed, stopped) adds precise scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to find campaign IDs for start/pause/stop operations, or to monitor overall campaign health at a glance.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies when not to (e.g., for a single campaign's details, use get_campaign). It also names the related lifecycle operations, giving clear context.

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