list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior (beyond parameter names), sorting, or whether archived/inactive campaigns are included. The description is minimal and relies on the implied safety of a 'list' 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief context sentence and a straightforward Args list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are presumably documented. However, it lacks explicit details about pagination flow (e.g., how to retrieve subsequent pages), filtering behavior, or any edge cases like empty results or permission requirements. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not 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?

The description includes an Args section that explains both parameters: page_size as 'Number of results per page (default 10)' and page_token as 'Pagination cursor from a previous response.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults, and is especially valuable given 0% schema description coverage.

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 'List all outbound campaigns' with a specific verb and resource, and adds context about what campaigns are (automate outbound calling, SMS, or email). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calls or list_flows.

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 for listing all campaigns but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., get_campaign for a single campaign). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the choice based on the tool name alone.

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