draft_get_campaign_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' and gives no information about read-only behavior, authentication requirements, potential error responses, or what is actually returned. For a simple get, this is a notable gap despite the implied safety of a read operation.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information, achieving high conciseness and clear front-loading of the core function.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description could be more complete by explicitly stating the return value (e.g., 'Returns the full draft campaign assignment object') or noting any draft-specific behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding what 'details' entails.

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 parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Draft campaign assignment ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get details of a specific draft campaign assignment' clearly states the verb (get), resource (draft campaign assignment), and singularity (specific). This distinguishes it from siblings like draft_list_campaign_assignments (which lists) and draft_get_campaign (different resource), and the 'draft' prefix differentiates it from non-draft variants.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this when you need a single draft campaign assignment by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, such as draft_list_campaign_assignments, or mention of any exclusions or prerequisites.

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