get_others_commitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It's a read-type operation (get), and the include_completed default of false implies only open commitments are returned by default, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover return format, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 concise and well-structured, with three illustrative examples that make the tool's purpose immediately tangible. No wasted words; the examples earn their space by disambiguating 'commitments others made to me' from related concepts.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation isn't needed. However, with no annotations and 2 parameters at full schema coverage, the description could add more value by clarifying the default behavior (excludes completed), potential ordering, and relationship to the search_commitments tool. Adequate but not rich.

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 limit and include_completed parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds example content but no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 lists commitments others made to me, with concrete examples that illustrate the concept well. It distinguishes from related 'my_commitments' family through the 'others made to me' framing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_my_commitments or get_all_commitments.

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 (when you want to see what others promised you) through examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like get_my_commitments, get_all_commitments, or search_commitments. No exclusions or differentiation guidance is provided for the closely related commitment-retrieval siblings.

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