Api campaigns object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions, whether the id must exist, or what happens on a miss. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

A single identifier replayed as prose; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is no content at all. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, though it is at least not padded.

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 no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and a crowded sibling namespace where several tools look interchangeable, an agent has no basis to choose this tool or supply a valid id. The definition is entirely inadequate for its context.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and says nothing. It never clarifies that id is a campaign UUID/slug, what format it takes, or how to obtain one (e.g. from campaigns_list). With one undocumented parameter, no parameter credit is earned.

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 is literally the tool name restated with underscores turned into spaces: 'api_campaigns_object_retrieve'. It conveys no verb-object statement beyond what the identifier already implies, and gives no clue what a 'campaigns object' contains or how it differs from the 100+ other *_object_retrieve siblings.

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 versus the closely named siblings in the same namespace, notably ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_list, and ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_object_retrieve's neighbours such as campaigns_cascade_info_retrieve or campaigns_metrics_retrieve. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives.

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