list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return format (Array of objects with id, name, status, priority, progress) and the optional filter. It does not mention any side effects or safety concerns, but as a read operation, this is acceptable. The behavior is clearly described.

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—two sentences plus a short Args/Returns explanation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides necessary details without any wasted words.

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 description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. With no output schema provided in the input, the description's explicit mention of the return fields (id, name, status, priority, progress) ensures completeness. The sibling tools provide context for when to use this vs. others.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing the allowed values for 'status' (active/paused/done/failed/cancelled) and explaining that omitting returns all. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and makes the parameter's usage clear.

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 'List campaigns' with optional filtering by status. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaign' (which likely returns a single campaign) or other campaign-related tools. The distinction is implied by the verb 'list' vs 'get'.

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 explains that the tool lists campaigns optionally filtered by status, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'get_campaign' for a single campaign, or other tools for mutations). Usage guidance is minimal.

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