scf_get_engagement_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation, requires viewer/auditor permissions, returns rows with a catalog lifecycle badge, and that deprecated controls are still included but marked. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'get'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the lifecycle-badge behavior is stated in a compact second sentence. No filler.

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 two well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the key purpose, access requirements, and the subtlety of frozen scope (deprecated controls render with a badge). It doesn't specify the exact return fields or pagination, but for this narrow read operation the description is quite complete.

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 the schema already provides sourcing guidance for both UUID parameters (via scf_list_organizations and scf_list_engagements). The description adds no additional param-level detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an engagement's frozen control scope') and explicitly frames it as a read operation. The term 'frozen' distinguishes it from live engagement or control-list tools like scf_list_scoped_controls or scf_get_engagement.

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?

Indicates the access roles required ('viewer role, or an assigned auditor') and explains the lifecycle badge behavior, which tells when this snapshot tool is appropriate. Does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so some inference is needed, but the role and frozen-scope context provide clear guidance.

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