List Campaigns

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish that. It does add useful context by naming the return fields and mentioning pagination through the `after` cursor. However, it does not describe how pagination works, what the output structure looks like, or how status filtering behaves when omitted, so the added behavioral transparency is moderate.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose and uses a compact args list. It is easy to scan and does not include unnecessary prose. It slightly duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, but the overall length is still reasonable and well organized.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, which ad account it targets, available filters, pagination, and the kinds of fields returned. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of return fields helps fill that gap. It could be more complete by explaining how to use the pagination cursor or the interaction between `status_filter` and the default behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 80%, and the parameter details in the description largely mirror the schema: ad account ID format, status enum values, limit bounds, and the pagination cursor. The description adds little beyond the schema and omits `response_format`, which is present in the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, a 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Lists campaigns for a Meta ad account.' It also enumerates the returned fields (names, objectives, status, budget info), which helps an agent understand what the tool provides. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like meta_get_campaign or meta_list_adsets, but the plural 'campaigns' and the ad-account scope make the intent clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as meta_get_campaign, meta_list_adsets, or meta_get_campaign_insights. There is no mention of when not to use it, what scenarios it fits, or how it differs from the single-campaign lookup tool. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Lists campaigns for a Meta ad account.'

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