list_archived_campaigns

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all archived standard campaigns' without mentioning pagination, sorting, or that limit and offset are required to retrieve all results. This provides minimal insight into how the tool actually behaves.

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 that is easy to parse, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It effectively front-loads the core purpose of the tool.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks context about when to use it versus similar list tools, and does not explain the meaning of 'standard' or pagination behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, this leaves the agent with some ambiguity about the tool's full behavior and appropriate selection.

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 schema fully documents limit and offset with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the tool's scope, but given 100% schema coverage, this is acceptable per the baseline of 3.

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 tool lists archived standard campaigns, with a specific verb and resource. The 'standard' qualifier distinguishes it from VAST-specific archived campaign tools like vast_list_archived_campaigns, and 'archived' distinguishes from list_campaigns. This is specific and not a tautology.

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 its usage through the name and qualifiers, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_campaigns, list_all_campaigns, or vast_list_archived_campaigns. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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