List Policy Set Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds the pagination behavior and the output fields (id, name, is_archived). It also discloses a useful boundary: get_policy_set only returns the first page, which sets expectations for pagination. While it doesn't mention rate limits or performance, the pagination detail and the deletion constraint fill the transparency gap beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core function is front-loaded, followed by the pagination limitation and two crucial ordering hints (read before detach/delete). Every clause earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

As a list tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (id, name, is_archived) and that it is paginated. It also covers the gap in get_policy_set and warns about delete_policy_set, which is essential for an agent making safe decisions. There are no missing details needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., q for substring search, page/limit for pagination). The description's mention of 'search them by name' essentially repeats what the q parameter schema already says, adding no new meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not lower or raise it.

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?

States exactly what it does: 'List the campaigns bound to a policy set, paginated, each with id, name and is_archived.' The verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns bound to a policy set') are specific, and it explicitly differentiates itself from get_policy_set by noting that the latter returns only the first page. An agent can immediately know what this tool provides and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this tool when a set has more campaigns than that page holds, or to search them by name.' It also advises to read the membership here before detach_policy_set_campaigns and delete_policy_set, which is actionable and prevents failed operations. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_policy_set.

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