list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all standard campaigns' and does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or that it excludes non-standard (e.g., archived) campaigns. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the verb is insufficient.

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 four-word sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema absent, the description is somewhat complete but leaves ambiguity around what 'standard' means and does not mention pagination via limit/offset. The schema covers parameters, but the description could clarify the distinction from list_all_campaigns.

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% for both limit and offset, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the semantic load.

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 standard campaigns' uses a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'standard' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_all_campaigns and list_archived_campaigns. It clearly indicates what the tool does.

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 qualifier 'standard' implies a subset of campaigns, suggesting when to use this tool versus list_all_campaigns or list_archived_campaigns, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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