get_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get delta since last report' and lists return types, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or whether calling it resets the delta. The description lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, making it only partially transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the purpose and one line each for args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then provides parameter details, making it easy to parse.

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 has a single optional parameter and an output schema (true), the description adequately covers the parameter and return summary. However, it does not explain what 'since last report' means mechanistically (e.g., is it since last invocation or a separate report event?), and it lacks guidance on concurrency or error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity for a complex campaign system.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is a Campaign UUID and that omitting it gets updates across all active campaigns. This adds clear semantics beyond the bare schema definition, which only shows the parameter is optional. The explanation is sufficient for an LLM to use the parameter correctly.

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 retrieves 'delta since last report' including completed steps, failures, and new notes. It specifies the resource (updates) and the action (get). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign (full info) and get_notes (all notes).

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 provides guidance on the 'id' parameter, saying to omit it for updates across all active campaigns. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_campaign or list_campaigns, nor does it give prerequisites. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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