ghl_campaign_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds modest value by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and OAuth scopes. It does not disclose pagination, error handling, or other behavioral details, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 brief (3 lines) and front-loads the purpose. However, it redundantly repeats 'Get Campaigns' from the title and includes technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth) that may not be essential. Still, it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 tool lacks an output schema, but the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., list of campaigns, pagination). It also fails to address filtering (beyond the status parameter) or how results are ordered. For a list tool in a domain with many campaign variants, this incompleteness impairs effective invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%) for both parameters (status, locationId). The description does not explain the purpose or allowed values of status, nor the format or source of locationId. This is a significant gap that prevents the agent from understanding how to set parameters correctly.

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 'Get Campaigns' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (campaigns). However, it does not differentiate from other campaign-related tools (e.g., ghl_email_list_campaigns, ghl_ad_fb_campaign_get), leaving ambiguity about which campaign type is being listed.

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. The description lists the endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling campaign tools, this omission hinders correct selection.

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