engagement_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get all findings') but does not explain what 'current engagement' means, what happens if no engagement is active, or any side effects or permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that depends on session context.

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 minimal and well-structured: one core purpose line followed by three parameter bullet points. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (the main function) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what a finding looks like, how 'current engagement' is determined, and what happens if there is no active engagement. It also does not clarify how it differs from similar sibling tools like get_findings. The description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all three parameters with concise meanings: 'min_severity: info, low, medium, high, critical', 'host: filter by specific host', and 'limit: max results'. This adds valuable semantic information beyond the bare schema properties, though it could be more detailed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get all findings for the current engagement.' This is a specific verb+resource combo, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_findings, which might serve a similar purpose. The scope 'current engagement' adds helpful context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., an active engagement), or situations where another tool (like get_findings) would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it operates on the current engagement.

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