simpletexting_get_campaignGet a single campaign by its id, including its message, recipients, and status. SimpleTexting REST: GET /campaigns/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint is already provided by annotations. Description adds return components (message, recipients, status) and REST endpoint, but lacks depth on permissions, errors, or rate limits.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the essential details including what the response contains.
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?
Only one parameter (campaign_id) with schema description 'Campaign id.' The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%.
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?
Clearly states the action (Get), resource (a single campaign), and specific details (including message, recipients, and status). Differentiates from sibling tools like simpletexting_list_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?
Implies usage context (requires campaign id) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: evaluate vs send, get vs list for campaigns/contacts/media/messages, and update for contacts. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'simpletexting_verb_noun' pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are imperative (evaluate, get, list, send, update) and nouns use singular for get and plural for list, as expected.
11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging API, covering the core operations without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose and earns its place.
Significant gaps exist: no create or delete for contacts, campaigns, or media; no delete for messages. The surface is read-heavy with only send and update as write operations, limiting full lifecycle management.