get_campaign_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it explains that PROCESSING is asynchronous, COMPLETED exposes MP3 URLs in the `audios` field, and FAILED indicates an error. It stops short of describing every possible edge case, such as error response behavior, but covers the essential behavior for correct use.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a compact structured list of statuses, and closes with the parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single simple parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return formats. It covers what the tool returns at a high level, the possible statuses, and the meaning of the required parameter, making it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining `campaign_id` as the ID of the campaign to be consulted. This is minimal but sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Consulta o status atual, roteiros e links para os arquivos de áudio') and clearly scopes it to a single campaign. It also enumerates the possible status values, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign or list_campaigns.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to check whether a campaign's audio has finished being produced. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it among the listed siblings.

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