list_campaigns

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only repeats the read-only nature ('list') plus the HTTP method. It adds no additional behavioral context such as session dependencies, pagination, or whether it returns all campaigns or requires an ad account. The HTTP path is useful but not behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with the HTTP endpoint in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean. It sacrifices detail but is not verbose.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not mention the scope (e.g., ad account) or filtering options, even though the schema covers them. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks a high-level explanation of behavior.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action ('캠페인 목록' = list campaigns) and the resource (campaigns), backed by the HTTP endpoint GET /campaigns. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign, which retrieves a single campaign.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of listing all campaigns for an account, filtering, or when to prefer get_campaign. The name implies usage but the description offers no explicit context.

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