tiktok_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. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and enumerates returned fields, which is helpful. However, it does not address pagination behavior, the effect of statusFilter, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key return fields with no filler or redundancy. Every clause adds useful 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?

The core purpose and return fields are given, which is sufficient for a simple list tool at a basic level. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should offer more context about pagination, filter behavior, and result structure; these gaps prevent the definition from being fully self-sufficient.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. AdvertiserId is described in the schema, while limit and statusFilter have no additional explanation in the description beyond their schema types/defaults/enum. The description's mention of 'status' in the return fields is not tied to the statusFilter parameter, so parameter semantics are underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'campaigns for a TikTok advertiser account', and lists the return fields (ID, name, status, budget, objective). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tiktok_get_adgroups or tiktok_get_ads.

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 implicitly signals when to use this tool (when you need campaign-level data for an advertiser account), but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites beyond the advertiser ID, or conditions when another tool should be used instead. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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