engagement_details_list

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 mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't describe what happens when filters are applied, whether results are paginated (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), what the default behavior is, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. However, it's too brief given the complexity of 5 undocumented parameters and lack of annotations, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (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 output looks like, or when to use it versus other engagement tools. This leaves too many open questions 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what parameters are available or their purposes (e.g., limit, offset, startTime, endTime, activityTypes). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 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' (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.