list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists campaigns with details like status and budget, but does not disclose critical behaviors such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if client_id is null. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('List campaigns for a client') and adds relevant details. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more structured with bullet points or clearer formatting for the listed attributes.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. For a simple list tool, it meets a minimum viable level but has clear gaps in transparency and guidance.

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 1 parameter (client_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'for a client' but does not explain the semantics of client_id, such as its format, whether it's optional, or what happens if omitted. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns for a client'), specifying the scope includes active/inactive status, product mapping, budget, and warning signals. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_products' or 'crm_customers_by_state' by focusing on campaigns, but does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'portfolio_close_rate' or 'sales_control_tower' in terms of campaign listing.

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 mentions 'for a client' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_onboarding_status' or 'onboarding_campaign_decision' that might relate to campaigns. Usage is implied by the context of listing campaigns, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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