Commit to a deliverable BEFORE handover. commit_hash = sha256(salt || sha256(content)) as 64 hex chars; deadline is ISO-8601; context links the escrow/job. Idempotent per (committer, nonce).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| deadline | Yes | ||
| committer | Yes | ||
| commit_hash | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Discloses idempotency and commit_hash construction, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or success/failure outcomes.
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?
Single sentence with format specifications. Extremely concise, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
Description explains commit_hash derivation, deadline format, and context linking, but leaves nonce and committer undocumented. Has an output schema but does not reference it. Incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with 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?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning for commit_hash, deadline, and context, but nonce and committer remain unexplained (just names). Adds some value but not fully compensatory.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('commit to a deliverable') and the resource, with specific format details (commit_hash, deadline). Distinguishes from siblings like reveal and verify by emphasizing 'BEFORE handover'.
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?
Implies timing ('BEFORE handover') and idempotency, but does not explicitly state when to use commit vs alternatives like commitment_status or list_commitments. No exclusions or conditional guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: committing, revealing, verifying, listing, status checking, and agent description. No overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (commit, describe_agent, list_commitments, reveal, verify), but 'commitment_status' uses a noun_noun pattern, slightly breaking consistency.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a notary service, covering all necessary operations without excess.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of commitments: creation, status query, listing, revealing, and verification. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.