get_campaign_folder

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns JSON with id, name, and count, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No contradictions; it effectively complements the 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 extremely concise: three sentences plus args/returns. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential information without any fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, the description covers the main behavior and return structure. However, the omission of the account parameter means incomplete guidance. Given the output schema exists, the return details are adequate, but the param gap reduces completeness slightly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains folder_id well (ID, source from list_campaign_folders) but completely ignores the optional 'account' parameter. Users are left uninformed about its purpose, a significant gap.

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 tool name and description clearly state it retrieves details for a single campaign folder. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_campaign_folders by specifying a single folder, and mentions confirming name and campaign count.

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 explicitly advises when to use it ('to confirm a folder's name and how many campaigns it contains before organizing campaigns') and directs to list_campaign_folders for discovering folder IDs. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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