List Commitments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully cover the behavioral safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond mentioning pagination metadata, which is acceptable given annotation coverage. No contradictions.

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 concise at four sentences, each adding value: first sentence states output, second guides usage, third explains pagination, fourth gives API endpoint. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, safety covered by annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, pagination, and the endpoint. A minor gap is lack of detail on what 'query parameters' beyond page/per_page are available, but overall it's sufficient.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about pagination (page and per_page control) and response format, but does not significantly deepen understanding of parameter values beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns a list of Commitments, with specific use cases such as paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering by query parameters. It also specifies the required parameter project_id and the exact endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for enumerating commitments with pagination and filtering), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_commitment_contracts. However, the guidance is still strong for typical usage.

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