get_campaign

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP GET method, which aligns with the annotation but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage for inputs, the description is sufficient for a simple single-resource retrieval tool. It provides necessary context without redundancy.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and fallback behavior (e.g., session token usage). The description itself does not add parameter-level information, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '단일 캠페인 상세' (single campaign details) along with the HTTP endpoint GET /campaigns/{id}, making it unambiguous that this tool retrieves a single campaign. This distinguishes it from sibling list_campaigns and other get_* tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_campaigns. The usage is implied by the name and the 'single' qualifier, but there is no mention of when not to use it or any alternative scenarios.

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