vast_get_archived_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get details' clearly implies a read operation, and the tool is simple, but the description does not mention any additional behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what if the campaign doesn't exist) or whether the returned details match a specific schema. It covers the core behavior but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core functionality and wastes no words, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose. It does not explain the return structure, but 'details' implies a representation of the campaign. Given the tool's low complexity and complete schema coverage, the description is adequately complete.

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 has 100% coverage: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Archived VAST campaign ID', which fully conveys its meaning. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so 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 the action: 'Get details of a specific archived VAST campaign' with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('details of ... campaign'), and scope ('archived', 'specific'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vast_list_archived_campaigns and vast_delete_archived_campaign by naming the single-resource retrieval purpose.

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 clear context by specifying 'archived' and 'specific', implying the tool is for retrieving one archived campaign by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., vast_get_campaign for active campaigns), but the context is sufficient given the sibling list. No exclusion guidance is given.

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