draft_list_campaign_assignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the operation ('List all draft campaign assignments') without adding any details about pagination, return format, whether the operation is read-only, or what 'draft' means in this context. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and object, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks important context. It does not explain what 'draft' signifies, what the response contains, or how it relates to sibling list operations. With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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 covers 100% of parameters (limit and offset) with descriptive text, so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description itself adds no information about parameters, so the 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 'List all draft campaign assignments' uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('draft campaign assignments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_campaign_assignments' and 'vast_list_campaign_assignments' by explicitly noting the 'draft' subset, and from draft_get/update/delete variants by indicating a list 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vast_list_campaign_assignments' or 'list_campaign_assignments'. The description does not explain the difference between 'draft' and non-draft assignments, nor does it mention any context or exclusions.

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