vast42_list_campaign_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List all' but does not mention that the endpoint actually paginates via limit and offset, nor does it explain the return format or any read-only guarantees. This could mislead an agent into expecting a single non-paginated response.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (two optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but incomplete. It could clarify that the operation returns a paginated list, and that 'all' refers to the collection of assignments rather than a single non-paginated response. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more context would help.

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 fully describes both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no further detail beyond the action, but it does not conflict with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'VAST 4.2 campaign assignments'. The version qualifier distinguishes it from other list campaign assignment tools, and the verb clarifies the action. It is concise and directly states the tool's primary function.

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 usage for listing all campaign assignments in VAST 4.2, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vast42_get_campaign_assignment for a single item or create/update/delete operations. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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