get_all_commitments

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

With no annotations and an output schema present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two-direction scope but doesn't reveal pagination behavior, ordering, default behavior specifics, performance implications of no filters, or what happens when many commitments exist. The limit parameter defaults to 50 implying truncation, but this isn't stated as a limitation explicitly.

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 efficient - two short bullet-style points plus a brief scope statement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds the direction detail concisely. No wasted words, though it could arguably be more informative without much length penalty.

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?

For a filtered list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this is reasonably complete. The two-direction behavior is the key non-obvious trait and it's captured. However, with 70+ sibling tools including many commitment/delegation variants, a bit more guidance on which sibling covers which filtering scenario would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit and include_completed) are fully documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mostly echoing the direction concept rather than explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 retrieves commitments 'in both directions' and explicitly lists both types (i_promised and they_promised). While it doesn't name a differentiating alternative among siblings, the two-direction scope distinguishes it from get_my_commitments and get_others_commitments, which likely fetch single-direction results.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Among the sibling tools, get_my_commitments and get_others_commitments are clear single-direction alternatives, but the description never points the agent to them or explains when all-direction retrieval is preferable over filtered variants like get_overdue_commitments or get_commitments_with_person.

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