List Campaign Participants

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the ownership constraint ('you own'), but does not disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or include any other behavioral traits. For a simple list tool with one parameter, it is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient. Could potentially benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for parameters), but it is concise and clear.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource (campaign) and ownership requirement. However, it does not mention if the list is paginated or what fields are returned, which could be useful for an agent. Still, overall sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (id with description 'Campaign ID'). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'List participants of a campaign you own' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('participants of a campaign') that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'neuron_get_campaign' (get campaign details) and 'neuron_send_campaign_message' (send message). The ownership qualifier adds precision.

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?

The description implies usage when the user owns the campaign, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'neuron_my_participations' (which lists all participations) or 'neuron_get_campaign' (which returns campaign details including participants?). No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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