engagement_details_get_associated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or mention any side effects. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of engagement objects), pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'engagements' encompass, what 'associated' means, how the filtering parameters work, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation or trial-and-error.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'an object' without explaining what 'objectType' and 'objectId' refer to, or what the other parameters (startTime, endTime, activityTypes, limit, offset) control. It doesn't clarify what 'associated' means in practice or how filtering works. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('engagements associated with an object'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' (which likely gets a single engagement) and 'engagement_details_list' (which likely lists all engagements without object association). However, it doesn't specify what types of engagements are retrieved (e.g., calls, emails, meetings, etc.), leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'engagement_details_list' instead, or how this differs from other engagement-related tools like 'calls_get' or 'meetings_get'. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for retrieving associated engagements.

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