list_campaign_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, auth requirements, or any other behavioral traits. It adds little beyond the tool name and bare purpose.

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 clear sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple, has an output schema, and both parameters are mentioned. However, it lacks behavioral context such as pagination, result scope, or any caveats, and gives no guidance on selecting between related list tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for asset_type by listing all valid enum values, but campaign_id is only described as 'the campaign', which adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 ('List') and resource ('assets attached to a campaign'), making the operation immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns and asset-specific listers such as list_landing_pages.

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 tool's intended use is implied by its purpose: use it when you need the assets attached to a campaign. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling list tools like list_landing_pages or list_blogs.

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