list_obligations

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'list' implying read-only, but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, default filters, or what 'local canonical' means.

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, very concise but sacrifices detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity leaves gaps.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what comprises an obligation, how instances are returned, or how to interpret defaults like status=active.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description only hints at the 'include_instances' parameter via 'optionally their dated instances'. It provides no explanation for the other three parameters (kind, status, db_path) which are not self-explanatory.

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 tool lists 'local canonical obligations' and optionally their dated instances, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_matched_obligation_instances or list_unmatched_obligation_instances, but the purpose is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools, but the description does not specify the context or constraints for using this one.

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