preview_campaign_recipients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns (count + sample list) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The word 'Preview' implies non-destructiveness, but it's not explicitly stated.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and efficiently adds the return type. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic return behavior (count + sample list). However, it lacks details like campaign state requirements (draft vs sent), pagination limits on sample list, or that the tool is read-only. It is adequate for a minimal preview but not comprehensive.

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 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds no additional semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Preview the recipient set for a campaign before sending.' It specifies the resource (campaign recipients) and action (preview), and distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_segment and pre_send_review by focusing on recipients of a specific 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 implies usage before sending ('before sending') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist, not already sent) or comparison with siblings like list_campaigns or preview_segment.

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