get_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the note about Meta API field limitations (default subset, extra fields not exposed) and pagination handling ('after' parameter). However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the optional token, error handling, or response format details. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, important note, and detailed parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the note about field limitations to a separate section for better readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics thoroughly, and key behavioral notes (field limitations, pagination). The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it could improve by addressing authentication fallbacks or error scenarios more explicitly, given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so effectively: each parameter is documented with clear semantics, including format ('act_XXXXXXXXX'), defaults, examples, and usage notes (e.g., 'effective_status' mapping to API array, JSON formatting handled). The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters understandable and actionable.

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 purpose: 'Get campaigns for a Meta Ads account with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('campaigns'), and scope ('Meta Ads account'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_campaign_details' (detailed view) and 'create_campaign' (write operation), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about differentiation.

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 implied usage context through the mention of optional filtering and the note about field limitations, suggesting when to use this tool for basic campaign listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'get_campaign_details' (for detailed info) or 'search' (for broader queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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