List stored engagements

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: the arrow marking the current engagement and the default hiding of archived engagements unless includeArchived is true. It does not mention read-only guarantees, return format, ordering, or pagination, though the list operation implies no mutation.

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 front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds a distinct detail. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers its core behavior and key default. The absence of an output schema and annotations is partially mitigated by the clarity of the list operation, though a note that the tool is non-mutating would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents lang and includeArchived. The description adds a behavioral nuance for includeArchived (hidden unless true) that is not explicit in the schema description, but it offers no additional meaning for the lang parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with "List the stored engagements," a specific verb and resource, and adds a distinguishing behavior: the current engagement is marked with an arrow. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_engagement, switch_engagement, or archive_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?

The description implies its use when an agent needs to enumerate stored engagements and clarifies the includeArchived default. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar siblings such as review_all_engagements or get_engagement, leaving the selection logic mostly to the tool name.

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