Get Campaign Stats

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 usefully enumerates the metric categories and their interpretation thresholds, but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or whether campaign_id must exist — 'get' is the only implicit safety signal.

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 opening line is well front-loaded and the numbered chain is scannable. But a large share of the text is prescriptive diagnostic methodology ('Report the failing stage and one change. Never more than one change a week') that belongs to the diagnostic workflow rather than to a stats getter, diluting the tool's actual behavior.

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?

With one obvious required parameter and an output schema that documents return values, the description needs little more to be callable. The metric list plus interpretation thresholds make it actionable, though the overlap with diagnose_campaign remains unexplained.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions campaign_id or its format/required-ness. The parameter is self-evident from its name, so this is adequate but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Get the figures...requests sent and accepted, messages sent, replies') and names the metrics returned, which differentiates it from siblings like get_workspace_stats. However, it never distinguishes itself from diagnose_campaign, and the closing instruction to 'Report the failing stage' blurs whether this tool reports numbers or performs diagnosis.

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 diagnostic chain implies the intended use (feed these figures into staged failure analysis) and even prescribes post-retrieval behavior. But it never explicitly says when to call this vs. diagnose_campaign, nor states prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the routing to the agent to infer.

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