engagement_details_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential action and resource.

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's complexity (simple read operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential error conditions, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many alternatives, more contextual information 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 description mentions 'specific engagement' which implies the 'engagementId' parameter, but adds no semantic details beyond what the bare schema provides (0% coverage). With only one required parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or provide examples, so it's reduced to 3 for minimal added value.

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 'Get details of a specific engagement' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('engagement'), but it's vague about what 'details' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get_associated' or 'engagement_details_list'. It's adequate but lacks specificity about the scope of information retrieved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'engagement_details_list' (for multiple engagements) or 'engagement_details_get_associated' (for related data). It mentions 'specific engagement' which implies you need an ID, but offers no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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