list_commitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only adds domain context (EDP agreements) but omits crucial behaviors like pagination, read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The agent lacks information on how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, while the second provides essential context. No redundant or extra words are present.

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?

The description explains the type of contracts but does not describe the return fields or pagination behavior, despite no output schema being available. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps in understanding the full response format.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining `filter` syntax or `sortBy` values). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 commitment contracts from the DoiT Commitment Manager, identifying them as EDP agreements. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing the tool from the sibling `get_commitment` which returns a single commitment.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like `get_commitment` or other list tools. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use hints, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the purpose.

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