list_campaign_examples

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 'solver solutions' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the response takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about safety, permissions, and output structure.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key parameter implications without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read operation with 3 well-documented parameters but no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address response format, pagination, authentication needs, or error conditions. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'difficulty tier' and 'solver solutions' which map to the 'difficulty' and 'includeSolutions' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'campaign level examples', specifies filtering by 'difficulty tier (easy/medium/hard)', and mentions inclusion of 'solver solutions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_example' (singular) and 'list_drafts' (different resource).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this lists campaign examples, there's no mention of when to use it instead of 'get_campaign_example' (singular retrieval) or how it relates to other listing tools like 'list_drafts' or 'list_my_published_levels'. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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