sendcraft_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('List') and gives a hint of the content (status, performance metrics), but it omits details such as pagination behavior, default limits, whether it returns only the user's own campaigns, or any authorization requirements. This is a modest disclosure, adequate for a simple list but not rich in context.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words or filler. Every word earns 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?

The tool is a simple list operation with only two optional parameters, both well-documented in the schema. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of 'status and performance metrics' provides a reasonable, albeit basic, expectation of the return. However, it could be more thorough by noting the availability of the status filter or the difference from listing individual emails, but given the low complexity, this is mostly sufficient.

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 fully describes both parameters (limit and status) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters behave or interact; it only states the output content (status and performance metrics), which is not directly tied to the parameters. Thus, the description does not elevate beyond the schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific action verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'email marketing campaigns'. It also specifies the output includes 'status and performance metrics', which differentiates it from sibling tools like sendcraft_list_emails (which likely lists individual emails) and sendcraft_get_campaign_analytics (which likely focuses on detailed analytics for one 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or explicitly name any sibling tools. For instance, an agent could not tell from the description whether to use this tool or sendcraft_get_campaign_analytics for obtaining detailed performance data, since 'performance metrics' is vague and no comparison is made.

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