get_campaign_ab

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The GET method and the word "evaluation" imply a read-only operation, and the description notes the A/B-test precondition. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether a winner may be absent, or what exactly is returned, so the transparency is only minimally adequate.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter GET tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the A/B-test condition, and the endpoint. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit statement of the return value (e.g., the winning variant or a null result) would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to deciding whether to call it is missing.

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%, and the id parameter is already clearly described as the campaign id that must be an A/B test. The endpoint in the description reinforces that id is a path parameter, but it adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the resource (an A/B-test campaign) and the specific concern (A/B winner evaluation), and the included GET endpoint helps distinguish it from general campaign tools like get_campaign_stats or list_campaigns. It is not quite a 5 because "evaluation" is slightly abstract; an explicit verb like "retrieve the winning variant" would be more precise.

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 phrase "for an A/B-test campaign" gives a clear context for when this tool applies, and the endpoint name shows this is specifically about the A/B result rather than general campaign information. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as get_campaign_stats, which keeps it from a 5.

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