vast_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only status, pagination mechanics, default limits, or that 'all' may require multiple calls due to limit/offset. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.

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, 'List all VAST campaigns', front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with documented parameters, but the lack of an output schema and absence of any context about return format, sorting, or pagination nuances makes it minimally complete. It does not mention behavior when no parameters are provided or relationship to other VAST entities.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'VAST campaigns', explicitly stating 'all' to indicate scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (generic) and vast_list_campaign_assignments.

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 list_campaigns or vast42_list_ads. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate, forcing the agent to infer from the name alone.

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