get_campaign

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 says 'Get details' without mentioning return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or what 'details' includes. For a simple read operation this is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and effectively communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for a basic 'get by id' operation but doesn't clarify what specific campaign details are returned or that it's a read-only operation. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 covers the only parameter 'id' with a description 'Campaign ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add further meaning beyond implying the id targets a specific campaign, which matches the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific standard campaign'). The word 'standard' distinguishes it from archived or draft campaign variants, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative 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?

The word 'standard' implies this is for regular campaigns, not archived/draft/vast ones, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_archived_campaign or vast_get_campaign.

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