douyin_get_campaign_status

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation by stating '只读' and adds valuable context by enumerating the specific data returned (status, videos, comments, verification results, stop reasons). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe response format or pagination.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the verb and purpose. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately lists the categories of information read, but misses details on response structure or any prerequisite context. It is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read-only tool but leaves some ambiguity about data formatting.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented campaignId parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning solely from the name and schema. This fails to add meaningful semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取' / 'read') and clearly lists the resources it accesses: campaign status, individual videos, comments used, verification results, and stop reasons. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start/stop/resume which are mutations.

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 clearly establishes this is a read-only status retrieval tool, which implies use for inspecting state rather than changing it. However, it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or mention sibling alternatives.

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