list_mailings

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like parameters affecting results, pagination, or example use cases. However, the description only restates the tool name in sentence form ('Lister les campagnes email/mailing') without adding any behavioral context. It provides no information about return format, ordering, or potential side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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, concise sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary filler, which is appropriate for a simple listing operation. However, it is slightly under-specified, leaving out important detail about parameters and usage, but the concise structure itself is not the issue.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not mention that filtering is possible via status, that limit controls page size, or that sqlfilters provides advanced query capabilities. The description is complete only in identifying the tool's basic purpose, not in enabling effective use.

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 coverage is only 33%, with only the 'status' parameter having a description (0=Brouillon, 1=Validé, 2=Envoyé, 3=Annulé). The tool description does not explain the 'limit' or 'sqlfilters' parameters, nor does it give any context for how status filtering works. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lister les campagnes email/mailing' (List email/mailing campaigns). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_mailing (retrieve a specific mailing), create_mailing, and send_mailing. Even though it is in French, it unambiguously identifies the action and subject.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mailing or get_mailing_stats. Its usage is implied by the verb 'list' and the resource 'mailings', but there are no mentioned conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings. It is only minimally instructive.

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