Get Campaign Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making behavioral disclosure less critical. The description adds valuable context on return structure (threats, actors, etc.) beyond annotations. No contradiction noted.

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?

Two concise sentences: first gives action and examples, second specifies returns. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists what is returned. It could mention format or handling of invalid names, but given simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently 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 100% with a single parameter described as 'Campaign / operation name'. The description adds meaning by providing examples and clarifying that it is a pivot by name, going beyond the basic schema description.

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 it pivots on a named campaign/operation and lists specific return fields (threats, actors, prevalence, ATT&CK techniques). Examples like 'Snowflake campaign' and 'ClickFix' further clarify scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on individual threats or actors.

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 implies usage context: when you have a known campaign name and want its intelligence. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context of siblings and the tool name provide sufficient guidance for appropriate use.

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