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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a filtered list (open only, own commitments by default) and mentions due dates and status. It doesn't explain things like result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior, which would improve behavioral context.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the key information: what it lists, the scope, and the returned fields. 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?

Given 6 parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the default owner and the concept of 'open' but leaves gaps on parameters like brain, since, and includeReassigned. Adequate but not complete for a tool with this many undocumented options.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the 'owner' default ('user's own') and indirectly suggests the 'includeClosed'/'includeDone' semantics via 'not yet closed'. Parameters like 'brain', 'since', and 'includeReassigned' are not explained at all, leaving significant gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (open commitments) with the key scope (not yet closed, defaulting to the user's own). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from commit-related siblings like commitment_set, but the 'lists' framing and open filter are clear enough to distinguish this as a read operation.

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 mentions the default behavior (user's own commitments), which gives some usage context, but doesn't say when to use this versus alternatives like commitment_set or recall. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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