mkt_campaign

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the read-only nature and the campaign id format, which are useful. It says nothing about permissions, what happens with a malformed or unknown campaign id, or how large/resolved the returned bundle is.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: resource type first, then the return sections, then read-only status, then the id format. The middle list of seven slash-separated nouns is dense but each item does carry information; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read-only view tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input format and the broad content areas. It still leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and relationship to sibling tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 single required "campaign" parameter is entirely undocumented structurally. The description compensates by giving its expected shape ("<plan_id>-w1"), which is exactly the missing information an agent needs to build a valid call.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Campaign 视图") and enumerates the sections the view returns (plan, human-review status, queue precheck, ledger, events, experiments, next steps). However, that enumeration overlaps heavily with several siblings (mkt_status, mkt_progress, mkt_ledger_query, mkt_run_queue), and nothing explains how this aggregate view differs from those single-purpose tools.

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 only usage signal is "只读" (read-only), which is context rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this composite view over mkt_status or mkt_ledger_query, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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