캠페인 리포트 초안 생성 가이드

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns structured guidelines and data, not a final report, and that it serves as prompt scaffolding for Claude. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the nature of the tool (non-destructive, non-calculating) is adequately conveyed.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states inputs and outputs precisely; the second sentence clarifies its role as non-calculative scaffolding. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (3 string parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality, inputs, outputs, and distinguishes from the sibling. It could elaborate on the 5 sections mentioned, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying types of data expected for each parameter (e.g., media_data includes impressions, views, VTR, CPV). This provides context beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 takes media performance, consumer response, and campaign context as inputs, and returns structured guidelines (5 sections) and organized data for a campaign report. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a calculation tool, aligning with the sibling tool 'analyze_estimate'.

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 clarifies that this is not a calculation tool, implying use for report scaffolding rather than numeric analysis. However, it could more explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling, though the distinction is clear from the context.

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