vast_list_campaign_assignments

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'List all' implies a read-only operation returning all campaign assignments, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, or any filtering limitations. The simplicity of a list operation makes this acceptable, but there is no added context beyond what the name suggests.

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 phrase, 'List all VAST campaign assignments'. Every word carries meaning with no superfluous text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate. However, it lacks important context about the distinction between 'VAST' and non-VAST campaign assignments, potential return value contents, or any caveats about what 'all' means in practice. The high number of sibling tools with similar names increases the need for such context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'limit' and 'offset'. It does not explain how pagination works or that 'limit' has a max of 100, but the schema covers those details.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'VAST campaign assignments', with 'all' indicating scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_campaign_assignments' by the 'VAST' prefix, though it doesn't explain what makes a campaign assignment 'VAST'. This is clear and specific, but not as rich as examples that add distinguishing constraints.

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_get_campaign_assignment, vast_create_campaign_assignment, or the non-VAST list_campaign_assignments. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent is left to infer based on the tool name.

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