get_commitments_with_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether results are sorted, limited in count, whether it defaults to only outstanding commitments, what happens if the person has no commitments, or any pagination/return-format details despite the include_completed parameter implying default behavior.

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?

A single efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly with zero filler. Could be slightly improved by adding behavioral notes but is appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Output schema exists which lessens the need to describe return values. However, the tool has 2 parameters with an output schema but no annotations, and the description doesn't explain the meaning of 'involving' (is the person the creator, assignee, or either?). For a tool with a boolean include_completed flag, more context about the default filtering behavior 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% with both parameters (email, include_completed) documented with clear descriptions. The description adds context that include_completed defaults to false (implied by schema), and the email parameter maps to 'a specific person', but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema since the schema descriptions already convey parameter semantics fully.

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 'Get commitments involving a specific person' uses a specific verb (Get) plus resource (commitments) plus scope qualifier (specific person). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_my_commitments, get_all_commitments, and get_overdue_commitments, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 vs alternatives such as get_delegations_to_person, get_follow_ups_with_person, or get_commitments search variants. There's no mention of when this tool is preferred over get_all_commitments with filtering, nor any exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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