forward_get_engagement

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

The description indicates a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or behavior when the engagement is not found. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries a heavy burden and falls short.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it could benefit from better structure, such as separating the output fields or adding a note about the parameter.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lists three return fields but does not detail them or provide error information. For a simple tool with one parameter, more context is needed.

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 only parameter, engagement_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not add any information about it. The agent is left without knowing the format or purpose of the parameter beyond its name.

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 that the tool returns 'Status, spend, and results-so-far for an engagement.' This provides a clear verb (get) and resource (engagement) with specific output fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'forward_get_results' which might overlap.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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