Get campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, potential side effects, or what happens if the campaign is not found. For a getter, this is a minimal disclosure but lacks depth beyond the obvious.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and the qualifier 'by id' is essential. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 get-by-ID operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It implies the return value (the campaign) and the input (the id). The lack of annotations means some behavioral context is missing, but the tool's simplicity and the clarity of 'Get a single campaign' cover the essentials. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or pagination, but these are not critical for a single-object getter.

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 schema has one required parameter, campaignId (type string), with 0% coverage from the description. The description's phrase 'by id' does imply campaignId is the identifier, adding slight meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and there is only one, this is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single campaign'), and clarifies the key qualifier 'by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gambot_list_campaigns (which retrieves multiple) and gambot_get_campaign_results (which retrieves results). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need a specific campaign by ID) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The name itself suggests the use case, and siblings are listed, but no explicit guidance is given about when NOT to use this vs. list or results tools. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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