growsurf_get_campaign_installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is well covered. The description adds the behavioral fact that it returns the full object with every field, which is useful for understanding the response but not a new risk or constraint. It adds minor context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise at three sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is clearly stated, and the parameter default is mentioned efficiently. Every sentence contributes essential information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only getter with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool fetches, the default behavior, and the return shape. While it could mention that the Installation tab is a sub-configuration of a campaign or that this is typically used before updating, those are minor and covered by the output schema and sibling 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter campaignId, including its default behavior and a recommendation to pass the id from growsurf_create_campaign. The description repeats this in its last sentence without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; 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 identifies the tool's purpose: it fetches the Installation tab configuration for a GrowSurf program. The verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'Installation tab configuration' make it unambiguous. It also distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_campaign_design or get_campaign_options by naming the exact tab and mentioning the return shape (full object same as update).

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 mentions the default campaignId behavior and that the returned object is the same shape sent on update, which subtly implies a read-before-update workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_campaign_installation or other getters. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving usage context implicit.

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