sendcraft_get_campaign_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list the returned metrics, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any side effects, or describe behavior for invalid campaign IDs. Since it's a 'get' operation, the read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving some gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the delivered metrics. No filler words or redundant content; every word adds value.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying the exact data categories returned. It doesn't detail response format or error conditions, but for a get-analytics tool, this is sufficient. The sibling context further clarifies its niche.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter, campaign_id, with a basic description ('Campaign ID'). The tool description adds only that it is 'for a specific campaign,' which barely enhances the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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's function: retrieving detailed analytics for a specific campaign, enumerating the metrics included (opens, clicks, bounces, unsubscribes, click heatmap). This differentiates it from siblings like sendcraft_get_stats (likely account-wide) and sendcraft_list_campaigns (listing campaigns). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('campaign analytics').

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 phrase 'for a specific campaign' implies the tool is used when analytics for a single campaign are needed, but it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools (e.g., 'for overall account stats use sendcraft_get_stats'). All context is implicit, not explicit.

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