get_campaign_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'optional PuzzleData' hints at response variability but doesn't fully describe behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating identification methods from response options.

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 read operation with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and response elements but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or example usage that would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying parameters are used to identify the example and control response content, but doesn't provide additional semantics like usage examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('one campaign level example'), specifying it retrieves a single example with solution and optional PuzzleData. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_campaign_examples' by focusing on a single item rather than listing multiple, though it doesn't explicitly name this sibling for differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_level' or 'list_campaign_examples', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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