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 only restates the query-filter behavior already present in the schema and does not mention read-only nature, pagination, result limits, freshness, or any other operational behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated concisely.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate for invoking it. Still, it omits any context about return shape, pagination, or how results are ordered, which would improve completeness.

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% and the schema already explains the optional query parameter as filtering campaigns. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('MITRE ATT&CK campaigns'), and it notes the optional search filter. Among the many sibling tools, none other is dedicated to campaigns, so the resource name clearly differentiates it.

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 intended use case is implied: list campaigns, optionally filtered by a search query. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many related list/search siblings, nor any exclusions or context about campaign-specific workflows.

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