field_campaign_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Fail-closed' hints at error handling but doesn't explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens on failure. 'Raw-free' suggests output transformation but is undefined.

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 sentence with no waste, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. It is concise in length but not in delivering necessary information.

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?

With two required parameters and no output schema, an agent cannot infer what output looks like, what 'raw-free' means, or what 'fail-closed' implies. The description is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 description must define both required parameters. It never mentions roster_path or output_path, leaving their purpose entirely unclear.

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 identifies a specific action ('validate') and resource ('app roster'), with a defined outcome ('emit a campaign status'). It is distinct from sibling validation tools by focusing on campaign status.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_policy_controls or scan_workspace. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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