campaign_status

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

The description explicitly marks it as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that 'Pending review never blocks the campaign', providing useful insight. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication, or rate limits, which are more important given no annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It efficiently communicates multiple status components, though domain-specific jargon may hinder clarity for some agents.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main status elements. However, it lacks explanation of the return format, error conditions, or how the output is structured, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the single parameter 'runId'. The agent gets no guidance on what value to provide or its format, making it difficult to use correctly.

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 it provides 'Read-only supervisor status' and enumerates specific components (lane/target queue, auto-transitions, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings that perform actions like 'run_campaign' or 'continue_run'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does without helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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