Smartlead: get campaign

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

The description provides extensive safety detail: 'read-only: yes; ... creates or modifies remote state: no; ... destructive: no.' However, the annotation idempotentHint=false directly contradicts the description's claim of no state modification, which implies idempotency. This is an annotation contradiction, so the behavioral transparency score is 1.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The safety list is clear but redundant at the end ('Free and read-only' repeats earlier statements). Overall, it is efficient and does not waste words, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, provides the endpoint, and explicitly discloses all relevant safety traits. The idempotency contradiction does not affect the completeness of usage instructions for this simple read-only GET.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (campaign_id and include_tags) at 100% coverage. The description adds only the endpoint template (e.g., {campaign_id}) but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Retrieve full configuration for one campaign by ID.' It specifies the action (retrieve), the resource (full configuration for one campaign), and the selection criterion (by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like smartlead_list_campaigns (which lists campaigns) and smartlead_get_campaign_analytics (which retrieves 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 description gives clear context: use when you need the full configuration of a specific campaign by ID. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It implies the usage but lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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