pws_get_promises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the beta status and listing the related entities returned. However, it does not disclose behavior such as default limit, result ordering, or that it lists all promises when no filters are applied. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it is concise but not maximally efficient.

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?

With no output schema and five optional parameters, the description should explain the return structure and filtering capabilities. It lists related entities but does not describe the response format, pagination, or the meaning of includeResolved. The beta warning is helpful but insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 does not explain any parameter. It mentions 'status' only as part of the returned data, not as a filter. The meaning of limit, workerId, contractId, and includeResolved is entirely absent, leaving the agent with no additional guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb 'Read' and a specific resource 'player-company worker promise requests and accepted obligations', and mentions related data (contracts, workers, titles, deadlines, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_respond_to_promise or pws_get_worker_contracts.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. While the read-only nature is implied, there is no explicit 'use this when' context.

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