direct_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'READ-ONLY' and enumerates the output fields (project, state, budgets, counts), which is valuable. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but the core safety trait is clearly disclosed.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List campaigns') and lists key output fields. The 'READ-ONLY' flag is a useful, concise addition. No filler or repetition.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description names the main output fields, which helps set expectations. It does not mention pagination or whether archived campaigns are included by default, but the schema does cover include_archived. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'project (from projects.json)' adds no new information because the schema already describes the parameter thoroughly. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists campaigns and specifies the included fields (project, state, budgets, negatives/excluded sites counts). It differentiates from sibling tools like direct_get_campaign (which likely retrieves a single campaign) and other list tools by its explicit scope.

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 implies usage as a read-only listing tool and mentions the project source (projects.json), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tool names are referenced.

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