meta_get_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (ID, name, status, objective, budget, bid strategy), which is useful, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, whether deleted/archived campaigns are included by default, or potential side effects (though 'List' implies non-destructive). The behavior is partially disclosed but not comprehensively.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise list of return fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

The description is adequate for a simple list operation, but gaps remain: no usage guidance versus sibling tools, no mention of pagination despite the cursor parameter, and no output schema to clarify the exact response shape. The return-field list helps, but the tool would benefit from stating when to use it instead of meta_get_campaign_structure or meta_get_adsets.

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 75%, so most parameters (adAccountId, cursor, statusFilter) are explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the one uncovered parameter (limit) has self-explanatory default/min/max values. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 ('List'), resource ('campaigns'), and scope ('for a Meta ad account'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like meta_get_campaign_structure, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for initial selection.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the go-to for listing campaigns. It neither names alternative tools nor mentions conditions or exclusions.

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