zuckerbot_get_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation by saying 'fetch', but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention rate limits, or describe behavior on missing IDs. The listed return fields help but leave behavioral aspects partially uncovered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first packs the core functionality with specific details, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; the description is optimally concise.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. It lists the kinds of details returned, asserts lifecycle-stage flexibility, and differentiates from siblings. It lacks error-handling info, but the simplicity mitigates that gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that the ID is used 'by ID' and lists the return fields, but does not provide additional meaning or format beyond what the schema already states ('ZuckerBot campaign ID').

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 ('fetch') and resource ('full details of a ZuckerBot campaign by ID'), lists concrete components (intelligence workflow state, approved strategy, etc.), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_insights or get_performance which serve narrower purposes.

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 states to use this tool 'to inspect a campaign at any stage of the lifecycle', providing clear positive guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, missing an opportunity for full differentiation among siblings.

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