get_engagement_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool gets metrics over time and mentions deltas, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, rate limits, or error conditions). The description lacks details on what happens if the message_id is invalid.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and specific metrics, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what metrics are retrieved but does not specify the output format, time granularity, or how deltas are calculated. For a simple tool, it is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% (message_id described as 'Message ID'). The description adds context about the kind of data returned (views, forwards, reactions with deltas) but does not add specific meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves engagement metrics over time for a message, specifically listing views, forwards, and reactions with deltas. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timeline_stats or get_message_timeline.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_message_timeline or get_timeline_stats. It only describes what the tool does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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