sf_campaign_members

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns member name, type, status, response date, and explicitly marks [READ-ONLY], reinforcing safe read behavior.

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 somewhat redundant, repeating similar information in two sentences. The '[INSTRUCTIONS]' prefix is unnecessary. Could be more compact and focused.

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?

No output schema, so description covers return fields (member name, type, status, response date). Lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read tool with 2 params, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, with descriptions for campaignId and limit. The description mentions campaign in context but adds no new parameter details beyond schema. 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 it retrieves CampaignMember junction records for a campaign, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like sf_add_campaign_member (adds) and sf_campaign_performance (performance).

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?

Provides specific use cases: 'see who is in a campaign, track engagement, or analyze campaign reach'. Implicitly advises against using for adding or performance analysis. Could explicitly mention alternatives but clear enough.

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