ddb_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral requirement of login and clarifies the user's role scope (DM or player). It does not detail return format, but annotations lower the bar and auth context is useful.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and prerequisite without any wasted words. It earns every part.

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, parameterless list operation with readOnly and openWorld hints, the description is complete: it explains what is listed, who it applies to, and what must be done first. No output schema is present, but the return value is self-evident for a list-all tool.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully covers it). Per the calibration baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description has no need to add parameter details.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('D&D Beyond campaigns') and scope ('you are part of (as DM or player)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ddb_get_campaign, which focuses on a single campaign.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires login — run ddb_login first if you haven't already.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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