sf_get_campaign_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool lists members with lead/contact details, implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination (limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description), rate limits, authentication needs, or that results are scoped to a single campaign. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the key parameters (campaign ID) and return format.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional status and limit parameters, nor does it describe the expected return format (e.g., list of objects with fields). The presence of sibling tools with overlapping scopes further underscores the need for more contextual details.

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 67% (campaignId and status have descriptions). The description adds no additional semantics beyond reinforcing that members include lead/contact details. Since coverage is high but the description does not enhance the schema, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List members of a Salesforce campaign' – a specific verb and resource. With sibling tools like sf_add_campaign_member and sf_update_campaign_member_status, this description unambiguously differentiates the tool as a read-only listing operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_get_campaign, sf_campaign_member_status_breakdown, or sf_list_tasks_by_campaign. No exclusions or preferred contexts are given.

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