list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return format (a JSON list) and key fields (status, audio URLs), but it does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or authentication details beyond the API Key reference.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the return-value information is stated in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, for whom, and what the response contains. No additional information is necessary for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The description appropriately clarifies that data is scoped to the API Key's user, which is implicit context rather than a parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lista todas as campanhas comerciais' (list all commercial campaigns), and clearly scopes it to the user linked to the M2M API Key. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_voices (different resource), create_campaign (creation), and get_campaign_status (single status lookup).

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve the full history of commercial campaigns for the authenticated user, with statuses and audio URLs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when only a single campaign's status is needed.

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