knowbe4_training_campaigns_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It's a GET/read operation which is reasonably obvious from 'Get', and it discloses what data is returned (modules, enrollments, completion stats). It doesn't state auth requirements, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple read-by-ID tool this is relatively adequate.

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 well-formed sentence that conveys purpose and key data returned. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is mostly adequate. The description names the returned content areas (modules, enrollments, completion stats) which gives the agent a sense of what to expect. It could benefit from noting error conditions (e.g., invalid/unknown campaign ID) but this is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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% for the single parameter (campaign_id). The description adds that the result includes modules, enrollments, and completion statistics but doesn't elaborate on the campaign_id parameter format beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific training campaign by ID'. It lists what's included (modules, enrollments, completion statistics), which helps distinguish from the sibling knowbe4_training_campaigns_list (list vs get-by-ID). However, the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 this is for retrieving a single campaign when you have its ID, contrasting with the list tool. But there's no explicit statement of when to use this vs knowbe4_training_campaigns_get for phishing or knowbe4_training_enrollments_list. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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