list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly communicates a simple read-only enumeration and the inclusion of indices, but it does not mention ordering, output format, or whether any state is affected, leaving some behavioral detail implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, the resource, and the key output detail.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity list tool, the description is mostly complete: it says what is returned and that indices are part of it. It would be slightly stronger if it clarified what an index refers to or how results are ordered, but the absence of an output schema is partially offset by the explicit mention of indices.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Saying 'all available' reinforces the no-filter behavior and adds slight meaning beyond the empty input schema.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('campaigns'), and notes that indices are included, which clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like list_gameobjects and list_enemies. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource name is enough to avoid confusion.

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 about when to prefer this tool over an alternative. The phrase 'all available' implies there is no filtering, but it does not state exclusions or point to a sibling tool for more targeted queries.

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