growsurf_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it notes that deleted programs are not returned and that GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID is not required. Since the output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return structure. This is solid complementary info.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third covers a behavioral nuance. The most important information (what it lists and when to use) is front-loaded. 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?

For a no-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what it omits (deleted programs), and clarifies the environment variable requirement. With an output schema available, the agent has everything it needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document, and the description adds no parameter details (which is expected). The note about not requiring GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID clarifies a common context, but it's not about a parameter in this tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing is missing.

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') and the resource ('GrowSurf programs available to the bound team'). It explicitly differentiates itself from campaign-scoped siblings by noting it should be used first to select a 'campaignId' before calling those tools. This makes its purpose precise and non-overlapping.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first when you need to choose a campaignId before calling campaign-scoped tools.' It also clarifies that it does not require GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, which is a key trigger for when this tool is appropriate versus others. The exclusion of deleted programs adds a useful caveat for interpreting results.

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