campaign_status

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

Declares 'Read-only' (non-destructive) and notes that pending review does not block the campaign, adding useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or side effects like rate limits.

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?

One sentence packed with specifics, front-loaded with 'Read-only supervisor status'. Efficient but slightly dense; could be broken into bullets or shorter clauses for readability.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with one parameter: enumerates key data points. However, lacks explanation of output format or how the status items relate, and does not reference capabilities like pagination or limits.

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 single parameter `runId` has 0% schema description coverage and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no guidance on its format, purpose, or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter semantically opaque.

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 lists specific resources (lane/target queue, auto-transitions, branch-retirement accounting, risk advisory band, pending review items). It distinguishes from sibling tools like loop_next or reverify_run which are action-oriented, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. any of the 23 siblings. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., runId must be valid) or contexts where this status check is appropriate before actions.

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