campaign_status

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

The read-only behavior is already declared via readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Changes nothing.' It adds useful detail about the 'Uses the active one if empty' fallback, but reveals little else about behavior such as output format or operational constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes purpose and safety, and the Args section is neatly structured. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description is largely complete: it names both actions, explains defaults, and clarifies side-effect-free behavior. It loses one point because there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what the returned progress or history looks like, nor does it route the agent away from sibling status tools.

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 carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It fully explains both parameters: action's allowed values ('monitor' vs 'status_history') and campaign_id's meaning plus default fallback behavior. This is exactly the compensation needed for a schema with no descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Watch a campaign run, or read its history of status changes.' It clearly identifies the tool's subject (campaign status) and read-only nature, but does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools like scheduler_status or show_status.

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 communicates obvious contexts for use: monitoring active progress or reading status history. However, it does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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