get_my_commitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what the tool returns (commitments I made) and gives examples, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether results are ordered. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact with one opening sentence and three example bullets that add concrete value. The examples efficiently clarify the concept of 'commitments I made to others'. No wasted words, though the bullet list could arguably be trimmed.

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?

With an output schema present and schema coverage at 100% for parameters, the description complements structured data reasonably well. The examples disambiguate commitment types, and the scope ('made to others') differentiates it from siblings. For a simple filtered-list read tool this is fairly complete, though it could note relationship to get_all_commitments and get_others_commitments.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema (limit default 50, include_completed default False). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema. The semantic distinction between completed and non-completed commitments is understandable from parameter names alone, so baseline 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 title 'get_my_commitments' is fairly descriptive, and the description adds specificity: it retrieves commitments the user made to OTHERS, with concrete examples distinguishing it from get_others_commitments and get_all_commitments. It's clear about verb+resource+scope, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives in the description text.

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 implies usage context (commitments I made to others) and the examples clarify what counts as a commitment. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs get_all_commitments, get_others_commitments, or get_overdue_commitments. Guidance is implied through the scope but no explicit alternatives are given.

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