engagement_details_get_associated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a 'Get' operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'engagements' entail (e.g., types, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear, though slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'engagements' are, how results are returned, or provide enough context for effective use, leaving too many unknowns.

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 but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'object' vaguely, but doesn't explain parameters like 'objectType', 'objectId', 'activityTypes', or filtering options. This fails to address the undocumented parameters adequately.

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 action ('Get') and target ('engagements associated with an object'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', but it's not vague or tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list'. The description implies usage for retrieving engagements linked to specific objects, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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