list_campaign_email_accounts

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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions required, pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all' entails (e.g., whether it returns active/inactive accounts). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all email accounts') and efficiently specifies the context ('associated with a campaign'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of email accounts. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of objects with fields like email, status), pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with potential data volume, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'campaign_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool filters by campaign, which is already evident from the parameter name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 the action ('List all') and resource ('email accounts associated with a campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_email_accounts' (which likely lists all email accounts regardless of campaign) or 'get_campaign' (which retrieves campaign details rather than associated accounts), missing full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_email_accounts' or 'get_campaign', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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