kickstarter_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by detailing the returned fields and explicitly warns that reward tiers are best-effort and may be omitted, pointing to endpoint documentation. It does not discuss error cases or data freshness, but the read-only nature and key caveat are clear.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and a useful example and caveat in following sentences. There is minor redundancy: 'Get a Kickstarter campaign's detail' is immediately restated as 'Returns one Kickstarter campaign's 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 simple two-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema, the description covers identifier construction, the complete set of returned fields, and an important omission caveat. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention what happens when a campaign is not found.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that creator and slug are the two path segments of the project URL and provides a concrete example (lookingglass and musubi), which makes the parameters easier to construct correctly.

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: 'Get a Kickstarter campaign's detail,' then enumerates the exact content returned, including funding snapshot, category, creator, story, and reward tiers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kickstarter_comments and kickstarter_updates, which target narrower scopes.

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 implies use when a single campaign's full detail is needed, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Differentiation from kickstarter_comments and kickstarter_updates is left implicit rather than spelled out.

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