list_commitments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it states connected mode is read-only, emphasizes that follow-through is never auto-sent, warns about untrusted email body data, and explains the safety block. These are crucial behavioral disclosures beyond the schema.

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 dense and every sentence adds value, but it is a long single paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of modes and safety. It is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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 covers the tool's main behaviors, both modes, safety handling, and even hints at output fields (direction/party/action/due/state/confidence) for connected mode. It lacks explicit error handling or a full output specification, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates by explaining the critical `messages` parameter (sandbox vs. connected) and the requirement for RADMAIL_API_KEY. It does not explain focus/limit/agentId/verbosity, but those are relatively self-explanatory and some are covered by schema descriptions or enums.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists open promises with due windows, using a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on commitments and offers a detailed explanation of the two modes, making its 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 explicitly explains when to pass `messages` (sandbox) and when to omit it (connected mode with API key), providing clear context on mode selection. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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