My Campaign Participations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It fails to mention pagination behavior (default limit, ordering) or what constitutes a 'participation'.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections). It is adequately short but could be more informative.

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 tool's complexity (list with pagination) and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, the user-scoping, or how 'participations' relate to campaigns.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters. These are standard pagination fields but are left undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their semantics.

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 states 'List campaigns you have joined as a participant', which clearly specifies the action (list), resource (campaigns), and scope (joined as participant). It distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_list_campaigns and neuron_campaign_participants, though it could further clarify the user-scoping.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over neuron_list_campaigns or neuron_campaign_participants, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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