Get campaign findings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's '(read only)' is redundant. However, it adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the shape of each finding (title, severity, CVSS, category, status, endpoint, remediation), the status enum values, and the caveat that findings may be false positives and need human review.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then payload contents, then the reliability caveat. Every sentence earns its place; only the redundant '(read only)' could be trimmed since annotations already declare it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so well (fields, status values, severity statistics). The main remaining gap is that it does not describe pagination or result-size behavior for what could be a large findings list.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% with a clear example format ('camp_20260922_abc123') in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about campaign_id semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the vulnerabilities and aggregated severity statistics for a Darkmoon campaign'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_campaigns or get_run_status, but the resource is distinct enough that differentiation is largely implicit.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to inspect the findings of a known campaign id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., when to reach for get_findings instead of get_run_status or list_campaigns), and no prerequisites stated beyond the required campaign_id.

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