knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read/list operation implicitly but doesn't reveal pagination behavior beyond what the params imply, rate-limit considerations, or whether it returns only a subset/has filtering constraints. For a list operation with zero annotation support, more disclosure is needed.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that states the purpose and enumerates return fields. No waste words. Slightly short on usage context, but for a simple list tool this is appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple filtered-list tool with 2 fully-documented params and no output schema. The description lists the fields returned, which helps. However, with no annotations and no output schema, a bit more behavioral context (what fields map to what, whether empty results are returned, etc.) would raise completeness. For its simplicity, it's adequate but not rich.

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 both parameters (page, per_page) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the fact that pagination controls result volumes but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 states a specific verb+resource ('List all phishing simulation campaigns') and enumerates the returned fields (names, status, creation dates, security test counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_get (singular retrieval) and knowbe4_reporting_phishing_summary (reporting aggregate). Loses a point for not explicitly contrasting with the sibling that also lists campaigns at a different granularity.

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 ('List all... campaigns') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_get or knowbe4_phishing_security_tests_list. Common context (this is the overview-level listing for campaigns) is implied but not stated as exclusions.

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