scf_list_engagements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a non-destructive read operation via '(read — viewer role)' and describes the fields returned in each entry (frameworks, status, dates, catalog version). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or error handling, but for a simple list tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 one tight sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, adds role/permission context in parentheses, and then lists return fields. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward list operation with no output schema, the description covers the key needs: what it lists, that it's read-only, and what each entry contains. It lacks explicit mention of response shape (array) or pagination, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. The status filter is documented in the schema, so it needn't be repeated.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including org_id's format and how to obtain it, and status's example values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organization's audit engagements'), and the parenthetical '(read — viewer role)' clarifies it is a safe read operation. It distinguishes from mutation tools like scf_create_engagement and implicitly from scf_list_my_engagements by emphasizing organization 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 implies use for listing organization-wide engagements, but does not explicitly contrast it with scf_list_my_engagements or scf_get_engagement, nor does it state when to apply the status filter. The 'viewer role' hint is a permission prerequisite, not a usage condition. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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