get_ability

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention response contents, campaign scoping, side effects, or error behavior.

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 short with no filler and leads with the main verb, but it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than effective concision. There is no structural separation or additional useful context.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what details are returned, why campaignId is required, or how this tool relates to sibling lookup 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%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. The agent is not told that campaignId is likely a scoping identifier and id is the ability identifier, nor what value shape or constraints apply.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ability') and implies fetching details for one ability, which is distinguishable from list_abilities and create/update/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly explain how it differs from other get_* tools beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives such as list_abilities or search. The description gives no context like 'use this after obtaining an ability ID' or 'use list_abilities to find IDs first.'

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