get_training_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a read operation but does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or that the 'exclude_percentages' parameter can speed up responses. The description provides minimal context about what happens beyond the basic fetch.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but does not cover return value structure, pagination details, or the effect of excluding percentages. It is not fully complete for a tool with multiple parameters.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'page' or 'per_page' affect results. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description fails to add value.

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 'Get all training campaigns in your account.' This is a specific verb ('Get') combined with the resource ('training campaigns') and scope ('in your account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_training_campaign' which retrieves 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving all campaigns, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_training_campaign' for specific campaigns, or how the filtering parameters affect results. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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