get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (configuration, execution stats, performance data) and notes that it's 'real-time,' which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or that it's a read-only operation, leaving some gaps.

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 three succinct sentences, with the main purpose in the first line and necessary details following. No redundant words, and each sentence 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?

The tool has a simple schema (one param) and an output schema, so the description only needs to provide high-level behavioral context. It covers the main use cases and return categories, making it reasonably complete. Minor omission is how to obtain campaign_id, but this is a standard and minor gap.

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 does not explicitly explain the campaign_id parameter. However, there is only one required parameter with a self-explanatory name, and the tool's purpose implies the identifier's role. This mitigates the gap, but the description adds no direct value to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Get full details and real-time progress for a campaign.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing full configuration, execution stats, and real-time progress, which differs from list_campaigns (likely summary) and get_active_calls/get_call (focused on calls).

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'monitor a running campaign, debug why calls are failing, or review results after completion.' This gives clear context, but no comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use is mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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