list_campaigns

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions pagination support but omits other key behaviors such as ordering, filtering limitations, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list tool, more detail on return structure and side effects is expected.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose immediately and avoids any unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values and pagination details. It states 'Supports pagination' but does not clarify how pagination is indicated (e.g., cursors, total count). The description is adequate but incomplete for a list tool.

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 input schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not significantly add value beyond the schema. It mentions pagination but does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide examples. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 campaigns in a workspace and supports pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'campaigns' are explicit, and the scope 'in a workspace' distinguishes it from other list tools that target different resources.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, or any comparison with other list tools for campaigns (e.g., get_campaign).

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