Campaign Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers a concrete behavioral detail: health is checked via GET /health and a 200 response means alive. This goes beyond what the tool name alone conveys. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is side-effect free, but the status-oriented wording and GET-based health check strongly imply a read-only operation.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it front-loads the three output categories and then adds the useful health-check mechanism. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool correctly. It tells the agent what data to expect and how health is assessed. It is slightly vague about what 'campaign status' encompasses, though the output schema can carry that detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description correctly omits parameter information, and the parameterless baseline applies.

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 enumerates what the tool returns: instance health, campaign status, and current map. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it lacks an explicit active verb and does not directly differentiate itself from siblings like map_list or initiative_state.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to get a combined status snapshot including health, campaign state, and current map. However, it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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