campaigns_get_onboarding_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (even though an output schema exists, the description could note status values), prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist), or any side effects. The bare verb 'Get' implies safety, but this is not explicitly disclosed.

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, grammatically correct sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and is efficiently structured. It loses a point because it is under-specified to the point of not covering essential details, but for sheer conciseness it is effective.

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 context among many campaign and wizard tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'onboarding status' means, the typical use case, or how it relates to campaigns_start_onboarding and campaigns_get_state. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the behavioral and usage gaps make it incomplete for a tool with zero annotations and one undocumented parameter.

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 input schema has one parameter, connect_instance_id, with no description, and the description adds no explanation. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory as an instance identifier, but the tool description gives no context about what 'instance' refers to or how to obtain this ID.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('instance onboarding status'), and the scope ('for outbound campaigns'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like campaigns_get_state, which covers general state, and campaigns_start_onboarding, which is a mutation. The specific phrasing leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to check onboarding progress before starting campaigns, nor does it differentiate from campaigns_get_state or wizard_* onboarding tools. The description provides no context for selection.

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