list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists campaigns with filters but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination, sorting, default limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). This is a significant gap for a listing tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying definition. Both sentences earn their place by stating the action and resource context efficiently, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, behavioral traits like pagination, and usage guidelines compared to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't address other critical aspects needed for effective tool invocation.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns') with a brief definition of what campaigns are. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'get_campaign' (singular retrieval) by focusing on listing with filters, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_clients' or 'list_partners' beyond the resource type.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios for filtering (e.g., when to use client_id vs. partner_id) or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_campaign' for single-campaign retrieval, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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