knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the associated security tests inclusion, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether this returns nested test details or just references. For a GET/details tool with zero annotations, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. The inclusion of 'including all associated security tests' adds value in one clause. Efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter GET tool with 100% schema coverage, this is near-complete. The missing element is the ambiguity with knowbe4_phishing_campaign_tests (which likely also fetches tests for a campaign) — the description doesn't clarify the difference between these two seemingly overlapping tools, which could lead an agent to invoke the wrong one.

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% — the single parameter campaign_id is documented in the schema as 'The phishing campaign ID.' The description mentions ID but adds no value beyond the schema since schema already fully covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific phishing campaign by ID.' It distinguishes from siblings like knowbe4_phishing_campaigns_list (which lists campaigns) by clarifying this is per-ID detail retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling knowbe4_phishing_campaign_tests, which could create ambiguity about which covers tests vs campaign details.

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 implies usage when a specific campaign ID is known and needed for details ('by ID'), which frames when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives like the list tool for browsing, leaving the distinction implicit rather than explicit.

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