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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), or what 'engagements' entail. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameters, return values, or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.

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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'object' but doesn't explain parameters like 'objectType', 'objectId', 'activityTypes', or filtering by time. With 7 parameters, this lack of semantic detail is a major shortfall.

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 specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', which might retrieve engagements differently, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement without contextual usage advice.

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