Engagement New

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. It states 'Create' and 'make it the active one,' which are state-changing actions, while annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about side effects.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear paragraphs. It is somewhat long but each sentence contributes useful context about resumability and active-engagement behavior, so it is appropriately structured.

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?

With 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description does not fully cover what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It omits parameter explanations, return format details beyond the workspace path, and does not address the contradiction with annotations. Significant gaps remain.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'passing an existing workspace directory' but does not clarify the roles of scope_path, workspace, or config_path, nor how they relate. It fails to add meaningful semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create (or re-open) an engagement and make it the active one.' It also distinguishes from sibling cordon_load_scope by describing itself as 'cordon_load_scope plus resumability,' giving an agent immediate differentiation.

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 explains when to use this tool by mentioning that passing an existing workspace directory re-opens it for resumption, and it notes that the engagement stays active until switched by another tool. It references cordon_load_scope and engagement_attach as related but does not explicitly state when to choose alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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