get_campaign_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and the content type, but it does not disclose return structure, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple getter the ambiguity is moderate, but the lack of detail about how HTML/text content is returned is a notable gap.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key information. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundant details or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the basic purpose but lacks context about response format, when to choose this over similar tools, or any edge-case behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves important gaps for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 already covers the single parameter campaign_id with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reiterating 'a campaign', which is redundant. It does not clarify format, constraints, or relationship to other parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('HTML/text content of a campaign'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_campaign (which likely retrieves campaign details) and set_campaign_content (which writes content). The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign or list_campaigns. It does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or direct references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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