direct_get_negatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical READ-ONLY behavior and specifies the campaign-level scope. Yet it does not mention pagination, error handling, or what happens when no results exist. For a simple read tool, this gives basic but somewhat limited transparency.

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, tightly-worded sentence that delivers the core purpose, scope, and safety property with zero filler. It is appropriately brief and fully earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, the lack of any guidance on parameter semantics, optionality, or the confusing 'Write' note in the schema leaves notable gaps. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool description itself adds no explanation of the parameters. The schema only provides a description for 'project' (in Russian) and leaves 'campaign_id' undocumented, resulting in 50% coverage. The description fails to compensate for this gap, and the schema's 'Write' instruction for a read-only tool adds confusion.

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 the specific verb 'List' and unambiguously identifies the target resource as 'campaign-level negative keywords'. It also explicitly differentiates from 'Group-level negatives', directly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like direct_get_group_negatives.

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 statement 'Group-level negatives are separate' gives a clear exclusion and implies that a different tool should be used for group-level negatives. The 'READ-ONLY' qualifier further signals that this tool is for reading only, not for modifications. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide a 'when to use' scenario beyond the obvious from the name.

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