vast_get_campaign_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full transparency burden. However, it only states that it retrieves details without disclosing potential error conditions, required permissions, or the exact structure of the returned object, leaving the agent to assume standard GET behavior.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the tool's purpose, 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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential operation and is reasonably complete given the absence of an output schema. The phrase 'Get details' implies the return value, but slightly more specificity about the returned data would make it fully comprehensive.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('VAST campaign assignment ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. Since the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses the specific verb 'Get details' and identifies the resource 'specific VAST campaign assignment', clearly distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete sibling tools. It accurately conveys what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like vast_list_campaign_assignments or the draft variants. It only states the operation itself and does not mention any exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage from the general purpose.

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