List Commitment Change Order Line Items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (page/per_page, metadata) and the return format (paginated JSON array). It does not contradict annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It is clear and efficient, though could be slightly tighter (e.g., remove redundant 'Required parameters' line since schema already marks them required).

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (paginated JSON array, pagination metadata). It also mentions the endpoint and API version. However, it omits details about the line item fields returned, which would be helpful for an agent selecting this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Pagination parameters are mentioned but already described in 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 clearly states the tool lists line items for a given commitment change order, using specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on 'line items' within a 'commitment change order', distinguishing it from tools like list_commitment_contract_line_items.

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 usage context (enumerate Commitments, paginated overview, find IDs, filter) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The phrase 'enumerate Commitments' is slightly misleading as the tool lists line items, not commitments.

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