Create dry-run engagement

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, etc.), but the description adds meaningful context: the engagement is non-executing and execution is operator-CLI only. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior, though it doesn't detail side effects like persistence.

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, front-loaded sentence that states purpose immediately and adds a useful nuance in the second clause. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is incomplete for confident use: it lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any mention of preconditions or side effects. The description is too brief given 5 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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% and the description provides no parameter meaning. Terms like 'targets' and 'capabilities' are left undefined, offering no value beyond the raw schema names.

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 tool creates a 'non-executing assessment scope' (a dry-run engagement), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only creation tool and clarifies that this is not an execution tool.

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?

Implied usage: this is for setting up a scope that will not execute, with actual execution limited to operator CLI. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like plan_assessment or explicitly state when not to use.

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