Api campaigns retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is useful authorization-related context not present in annotations, but it does not explain masking scope or response shape.

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?

It is a single waste-free sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a retrieve tool: the key resource identity is absent, so the sentence does not earn its place as sufficient definition.

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 simple retrieve operation, the description omits the object type and the meaning of the only parameter, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps. Only field-masking behavior is noted, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently select and call the tool.

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 sole required parameter id is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions the id parameter or explains its role, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 says it returns a single object but never names the resource (campaign), so it does not distinguish itself from many sibling retrieve tools. The only specific detail is field masking, not the object type.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_list, ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_object_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_status_retrieve. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing conditions.

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