ghl_email_list_workflow_campaigns

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, ensuring safety. The description adds pagination behavior (limit, offset) and the endpoint details, which go beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with the title and action. It includes endpoint, scopes, and pagination info, but could be more structured.

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-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, required location ID, pagination, and OAuth scopes. Annotations handle safety. It is sufficiently complete, though return format is not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description only mentions pagination params (limit, offset) without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Workflow Campaigns' and 'Get list of workflow campaigns for a location', providing a specific verb (list) and resource (workflow campaigns) with scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_email_get_workflow_campaign (singular) and ghl_email_list_campaigns (general campaigns).

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 context by specifying it's for workflow campaigns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Pagination and OAuth scopes are mentioned, which helps understand usage but without exclusions.

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