list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or whether all campaigns or only those owned by the user are returned. This leaves gaps in what the agent can expect, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two tight sentences with the main action front-loaded. 'List your outreach campaigns' immediately answers what it does, and the second sentence adds useful filtering context. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filtering capability. It does not mention pagination details or response format, but these are partially inferred from the schema and the verb 'list'. Slightly more detail on scope or return shape would make it fully complete, but it is adequately informative as is.

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 all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'status' and 'type' but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and does not mention limit/offset at all. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 'List your outreach campaigns' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_contacts or list_companies. It also clarifies the scope ('your') and mentions filtering, which differentiates it from get_campaign for single retrieval.

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 phrase 'Filter by status or type to find active, draft, or paused campaigns' provides clear context on when to use this tool (to search/filter campaigns). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_campaign for single-campaign retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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