Graph Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the derivation method (connected components + label propagation) and the content of the clusters, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe pagination or edge-case behavior, but the output schema and limit parameter cover that.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and list of output fields. It includes a clear distinction from a sibling tool without any redundant or fluff content. 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?

The tool is relatively simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present). The description fully explains what the tool returns, how the clusters are derived, and how it differs from related tools. The output schema handles return values, so no further description is needed.

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 100%, with the 'limit' parameter documented as 'Default 15, max 50.' The description adds no additional information about this parameter, so it doesn't improve on what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 what the tool does: it returns campaign clusters derived from the similarity graph, listing specific fields like member count, cohesion, top actors, etc. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_campaign_intelligence, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: it says this reports engine-derived clusters, while get_campaign_intelligence looks up named campaigns from threat text. This gives the agent clear selection criteria.

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