knowbe4_phishing_campaign_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states this is a list/read operation, but provides no detail on pagination behavior, return format, or whether this is safe/idempotent. The pagination defaults are buried in the schema rather than the description.

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?

A single concise sentence that captures the core function. No filler or redundancy. Could arguably mention pagination or the distinction from the sibling list tool, but the core message is delivered efficiently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple closely-related sibling tools (knowbe4_phishing_security_tests_list, knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_get), the description under-explains. It doesn't clarify what a PST is, when to use this vs. the broader list, or what return data looks like.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds the campaign-scoping semantic (PSTs belonging to a specific campaign) which isn't fully expressed in the schema's 'The phishing campaign ID' line. This is baseline-3 territory given high schema coverage, with the description adding modest extra meaning about campaign linkage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all Phishing Security Tests (PSTs) for a specific campaign.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool knowbe4_phishing_security_tests_list by scoping to a specific campaign via campaign_id. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself textually from that sibling.

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 on when to use this tool vs. knowbe4_phishing_security_tests_list (which lists all PSTs) or other reporting tools. The campaign-scoping intent is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated as a when-to/alternatives note.

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