vast_get_campaign

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'details' suggests the full campaign record is returned, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or what fields the details include.

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 seven-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and containing no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify the distinction from archived campaigns or describe the return structure, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'VAST campaign ID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states the operation ('Get'), the resource ('VAST campaign'), and the scope ('specific'), which clearly distinguishes it from list, create, update, and delete siblings. The 'VAST' qualifier separates it from the generic get_campaign tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vast_get_archived_campaign, vast_list_campaigns, or the non-VAST get_campaign. The description only states what it does, leaving contextual decisions entirely to the agent.

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