growsurf_get_campaign_design

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it discloses that the confirmation section is omitted when no confirmation fields are stored, and that null/omitted fields use localized defaults. This helps the agent anticipate response edge cases, though the full return structure is left to the output schema.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then lists specific field sections and edge cases. It avoids fluff and each sentence contributes value. Slightly longer than necessary but 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers what fields are fetched, the campaignId targeting behavior, and important null/omission handling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description for campaignId is already detailed (targets campaign, defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, usage with growsurf_create_campaign). The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'configured design fields for your GrowSurf program', and enumerates specific sub-sections (Window content, colors, sharing sections, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling getters by focusing on design-specific data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other getters like growsurf_get_campaign or growsurf_get_campaign_options. It implies usage by detailing design fields, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance. The note about targeting campaignId is helpful for invocation but not for tool selection.

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