engagement_details_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at query capabilities, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'engagements' encompasses. The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity—it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more words might be needed.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'engagements' are, how filtering works, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'optional filtering' generically without explaining what the 5 parameters (limit, offset, startTime, endTime, activityTypes) actually do, their relationships, or formatting requirements. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 'List all engagements with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('engagements'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'engagements' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_get_associated', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' (for single engagements) and 'engagement_details_get_associated' (likely for related engagements), there's no indication of when this list tool is preferred or what its specific use cases are.

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