get_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get a single campaign by ID with full details', which is a read operation, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the campaign ID does not exist. Minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 one sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'full details' entails, potential error conditions, or the response format. The context signals show a straightforward tool, but the description should provide more completeness to be fully useful for an agent.

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 100% (the single parameter campaignId has a description). The description adds 'with full details' which hints at the response but does not add meaning to the parameter itself. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description provides marginal value, scoring baseline 3.

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 explicitly states 'Get a single campaign by ID with full details', which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (campaign), scope (single by ID), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaigns (plural) and get_campaign_stats (stats).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single campaign's full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_campaigns for multiple campaigns) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the presence of many sibling tools, more guidance would be helpful.

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