proofpoint_threat_get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state what the tool returns (actors, malware families, techniques, associated messages), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate for a simple get tool but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, no filler. The first states the action and object, the second lists the return content. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and what the response includes. It lacks minor details like whether the return is paginated (especially for 'associated messages') but overall provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear description ('The campaign ID to look up'). The description's phrase 'by campaign ID' adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific threat campaign'), with a clear identifier ('campaign ID'). It also lists the returned data categories (actors, malware families, techniques, messages), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic threat lookups or forensic campaign retrieval.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a campaign ID and need campaign details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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