scf_get_engagement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and specifies the required access roles ('viewer role, or an auditor assigned to this engagement'), which is important behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, the resource scope, the read-only nature, and the access constraint in under 20 words.

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 simple getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description provides sufficient context: the operation is a read, it targets one engagement, and it requires appropriate roles. It could specify the return shape, but 'detail' reasonably implies the full engagement object.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions including how to obtain them from scf_list_organizations and scf_list_engagements. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one audit engagement's detail'), and explicitly notes it is a read operation. This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like scf_list_engagements and other get_* siblings.

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 implies usage by saying 'Get one audit engagement's detail,' which signals it is for retrieving a single engagement rather than listing them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is mostly inferred.

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