proofpoint_forensics_get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregated behavioral analysis, implying a read operation, but does not detail permissions, potential result size, or how threats without evidence are handled.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information, and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return value (aggregated behavioral analysis) sufficient for basic usage, but lacks detail on result structure or pagination. Still, the tool is relatively simple, so completeness is good but not perfect.

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 100% with a clear description for campaign_id. The tool description adds no additional nuance beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves forensic evidence for all threats in a campaign and returns aggregated behavioral analysis, distinguishing it from the single-threat sibling tool proofpoint_forensics_get_threat.

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 phrase 'for all threats in a campaign' and 'across all associated threats' explicitly establishes the tool's scope for campaign-level forensics, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so some inference is still required.

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