Get Campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, how it handles invalid or missing campaign IDs, or what the return value structure is. For a getter, this is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that clearly and directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource, and contains no unnecessary words. This is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter getter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. It states what the tool does and how to invoke it, but does not elaborate on what 'details' are included, potential limitations, or use cases. While adequate for a straightforward getter, it lacks the richness needed for full contextual completeness.

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 100% (the campaignId parameter has a description: 'Campaign/Program Id'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that the tool works by CampaignId. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get details for a single program/campaign by its CampaignId.' It specifies the action (get), the resource (details for a single program/campaign), and the key identifier (CampaignId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (which lists multiple campaigns).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_campaigns or get_action. It implicitly suggests use for a single campaign by ID, but does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites.

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