vast_list_archived_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any other contextual nuances beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the full burden on the description which fails to add depth.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently states the action and target, earning every word it uses without fluff.

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 operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. It lacks usage context and return expectations, but the schema and tool name cover the essentials, making it adequate though not comprehensive.

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 describes both parameters ('limit' with default and max, 'offset' as pagination offset), so description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline 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 all archived VAST campaigns' with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_archived_campaigns' which has an identical function without the VAST prefix, leaving ambiguity about when to use which.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vast_get_archived_campaign or list_archived_campaigns. The description gives only the action and target, providing no context for tool selection.

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