engagement_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatically setting scope for all tools, tagging all subsequent findings/jobs/credentials to this engagement. It also includes example values for name and scope. It could further clarify side effects like whether a previous engagement context is replaced, but the provided information is meaningful and goes beyond a simple restatement.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with a purpose statement, then explains the key behavioral consequence, and finishes with a clear parameter list. Every line adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral effects, and parameter semantics. It could mention what the tool returns or whether it requires a prior setup, but the examples and tags provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting all four parameters with names, meanings, and examples (e.g., name: 'ClientName-WebApp-2026', scope: ['192.168.1.0/24', 'example.com']). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('engagement'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling engagement tools like engagement_status, engagement_end, and engagement_list. It also explains the critical side effects: 'Sets scope for all tools automatically' and tags all subsequent findings, jobs, and credentials.

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 clearly indicates this is the entry point for engagement work ('Start a new engagement', 'Sets scope for all tools automatically'). It provides context for when to use it, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use scope_add for incremental scope changes) or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over related tools.

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