get_cm360_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes what is returned (account ID, Floodlight config, u-variables) but does not mention authentication, error cases, or side effects. Since it is a read-only retrieval, the transparency is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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, information-dense sentence. Every word contributes meaning, listing exactly what is returned. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. However, it could be improved by noting that the operation is read-only or indicating potential errors (e.g., if not configured). Overall, it is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves Campaign Manager 360 configuration, listing specific items like account ID, Floodlight configuration ID, and u-variables with detailed attributes. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings such as get_account or get_tag_management.

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 implicitly conveys usage context: use this to retrieve the complete CM360 setup. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the purpose is obvious enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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