Engagement Attach

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'loads' state rather than mutating it. It also transparently explains that background jobs are included because they live in the server's event loop, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise, well-structured, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavior in two sentences.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and side effects well, and an output schema is present so return values need not be described. However, the ambiguity around the parameters leaves a notable gap in completeness for a tool with an otherwise clear purpose.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for 'workspace' or 'scope_path', and the description does not clarify the distinct meaning or format of these parameters. The phrase 'by path' is ambiguous as to which parameter is the path, so the description insufficiently compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Re-attach') and resource ('existing engagement workspace'), and distinguishes this from creating a new engagement. It also explains what loading the workspace entails.

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 when to use the tool: when resuming an existing engagement workspace. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like engagement_new or session_register, but the 're-attach to an existing' phrasing provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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