query_commitments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Returns') and warns that omitting filters returns every commitment, which is a significant behavioral caveat. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two concise sentences that lead with the verb and core behavior, followed by a useful edge-case note ('no filters returns every commitment'). There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 tool is a simple filtered query with optional parameters; the schema covers parameter meanings, and the description explains the purpose and no-filter behavior. However, since there is no output schema, a brief mention of return shape or ordering would improve completeness, though the current description is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 description uses the specific verb 'Returns' with the resource 'commitments matching a filter', making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this query tool from sibling mutation tools like upsert_commitment and send_nudge by focusing on retrieval and filtering.

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 states it is used by the scheduler to find items due for poll or nudge checks, providing a concrete when-to-use context. It also notes that with no filters it returns every commitment, which is an implicit warning about broad results. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the use case is clear.

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