scf_get_engagement_query

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's '(read)' echo adds little. It does add useful behavioral context via the role requirement and the 'full response thread' scope, but it does not describe return shape or error behavior. This is comparable to the calibration example where annotations carry most of the safety weight.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the read semantic and role constraint. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 read-only tool with three well-documented UUID parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (one query plus its full response thread) and who can call it. The only notable gap is that it does not enumerate the fields inside the response thread, which is minor given the operation's simplicity.

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 each UUID parameter includes provenance ('obtain from scf_list_engagements', etc.). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying the tool fetches one query and its thread, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 singular resource ('one auditor query'), and a distinguishing feature ('full response thread'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling query tools like scf_list_engagement_queries, scf_create_engagement_query, and scf_respond_to_engagement_query.

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 clear context by labeling the call as a read and stating the access prerequisite ('viewer role, or an assigned auditor'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the schema's 'obtain from' instructions for each UUID parameter effectively guide the agent to the right lookup flow.

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