Campaign status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by framing the tool as a live, pollable status endpoint. It also gives concrete example values (running or stopped), which helps the agent anticipate evolving responses.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the polling instruction is a distinct, useful addition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It gives usage context and example status values, though it does not describe the exact output shape since no output schema is provided.

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 single parameter campaign_id is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase "by id" reinforces the parameter's role but does not add meaning 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 tool returns a live status of a campaign by id, with examples like running or stopped. It distinguishes this from sibling tools such as ictdialer_campaign_summary and ictdialer_campaign_result by emphasizing live, pollable status.

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?

"Poll this while a campaign runs" provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the live-status wording and sibling tool names make the intended usage clear.

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