List drip campaigns

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: response includes has_more, include_analytics triggers an extra lookup per page, and the analytics object fields are listed. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and cost implications.

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?

Two well-structured sentences front-load the main action and then efficiently cover filtering, analytics cost, and returned fields. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety context, the description covers all key aspects needed to invoke correctly: resource type, pagination, optional filters, analytics behavior, and result shape. No significant gaps remain.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual semantics by noting status 'all' mirrors dashboard filter tabs and by emphasizing the trade-off of include_analytics, which slightly boosts understanding beyond the 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?

Specific verb 'Lists' identifies exact resource: drip autoresponder campaigns on the current site, with pagination and status filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_triggered_campaigns and list_rss_campaigns.

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?

Provides clear context: when to use on current site, pagination, filter by status, and when to set include_analytics (only for stats/performance). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative list-campaign tools or mention when not to use this tool.

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