campaigns_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it says 'all campaigns' but never mentions pagination (despite a 'page' parameter), that archived campaigns are excluded unless include_archived is set, or that authentication credentials are required. Nothing about rate limits or return behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted in other dimensions rather than being a model of dense information.

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 6-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination behavior, archiving defaults, filtering semantics, and what the response contains — all of which an agent needs to call this correctly alongside 70+ siblings.

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 83%, so the schema already documents page, include_archived, last_edit_time_gt, apiKey, and restEndpoint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting; only sort_direction lacks a schema description.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List all campaigns') with clear scope ('in the workspace'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as campaigns_details, campaigns_analytics, or canvas_list, leaving the agent to infer which is appropriate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like campaigns_details (a single campaign) or campaigns_analytics (metrics). No prerequisites, no mention of the required API key/endpoint parameters, and no exclusions are given.

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