mautic_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds only the raw REST path 'GET /api/campaigns', which conveys little about behavior — nothing about pagination semantics, default result window, ordering behavior, or what a campaign record contains. For a list endpoint with six filters, this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the second sentence is a raw endpoint path rather than useful guidance, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

This is a collection-listing tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and a sibling that fetches individual campaigns. The description explains none of the return shape, no pagination guidance linking limit/start to iteration, and no routing to the detail sibling. It is inadequate relative to the tool's actual surface.

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 only 50%, and three parameters (minimal, orderBy, orderByDir) have no schema descriptions at all. The tool description does not compensate: it never explains what 'minimal' returns, what fields can be used with orderBy, or what search syntax is accepted. The agent must guess at half the inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List campaigns.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read/list operation on the campaigns collection. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling mautic_get_campaign, which retrieves a single campaign, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the natural alternative (mautic_get_campaign for a single campaign, or mautic_add_contact_to_campaign for campaign membership), nor any prerequisite such as required permissions or that campaigns must exist first.

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