knowbe4_training_campaigns_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read/list operation (implied by 'List'), which the agent would infer, but beyond that it doesn't describe pagination behavior implications, rate limits, default sort order, or whether disabled/archived campaigns are included. 'All training campaigns' is somewhat ambiguous about scope filtering.

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 efficient sentence that conveys purpose and return data in minimal words. No wasted content, though it could function with slightly more usage guidance while remaining tight.

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 simple paginated list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics (what it returns). However, lacking annotations and usage guidance, and with limited behavioral disclosure, a slightly more complete treatment would benefit an agent choosing between the many training/phishing tool siblings. It's adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 documented in the schema with defaults and max. The description lists return fields but doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add meaningful parameter context.

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 ('all training campaigns'), and enumerates what fields are returned. It distinguishes from siblings like phishing_campaigns_list by specifying 'training' campaigns. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling knowbe4_training_campaigns_get, though the plural 'list' vs 'get' distinction is implicit in names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as training_campaigns_get, enrollments_list, or reporting_training_summary. There are no exclusion criteria or context on which sibling tools serve related but distinct use cases. The only hint is the return fields, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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