cm_get_client_sent_campaigns

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as pagination, return format, or filtering, but does not contradict the 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?

The description is extremely concise at five words, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'sent campaigns' entails or suggesting when to use this tool over siblings, leading to a score of 3.

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 only parameter (clientId) is fully described in the input schema with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a client's sent campaigns' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'client's sent campaigns'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like cm_get_client_drafts and cm_get_client_scheduled_campaigns, which deal with other campaign states.

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 does not mention that similar tools exist for drafts or scheduled campaigns, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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