List triggered campaigns

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: pagination response includes `has_more`, status defaults to 'all', and include_analytics incurs an extra per-page lookup. It also specifies the analytics object fields (sent, seen, clicked, ctr, goal_count, goal_value), providing transparency about return structure and cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, well-structured, and every sentence serves a purpose: main functionality, pagination, status filtering, and analytics cost/return. It front-loads the core verb and resource, then provides actionable guidance 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers pagination, filtering, analytics trade-offs, and response format, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Complexity is well addressed with clear parameter-specific guidance.

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 descriptions already cover all 5 parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by clarifying the analytics object's fields and reinforcing the cost of include_analytics. It also explains the pagination behavior ('has_more') which enriches the meaning of page/limit parameters.

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 the tool 'Lists the triggered campaigns' with specific examples (Price Drop / Inventory Alert / Cart Abandonment) and notes pagination via `has_more`. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling campaign list tools like list_drip_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 for when to use the optional `include_analytics` parameter ('only when the user asks for stats/performance') and notes the status filter mirrors dashboard tabs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling list tools (e.g., list_drip_campaigns), though the campaign type examples imply it.

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