commitment_status

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

Annotations cover read-only and idempotent safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable transparent behavior: it's free, and a leaked commitment ID alone cannot be used without the originating api_key. This is security-relevant context that goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a necessary caveat. No fluff or repetition—every word contributes.

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 simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (the possible verdicts), the free nature, and auth requirements. It could add a tiny bit about response format, but the verdict list is sufficient for a basic status check.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds relational meaning by specifying that the api_key must be the one that opened the commitment, and indirectly links commitment_id to that key. It clarifies a contextual constraint not obvious from the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool as returning a current verdict (HELD/DECAYED/BROKEN/PENDING) for a user's tracked commitment, distinguishing it from sibling verify/open tools by emphasizing 'YOUR' and the api_key requirement. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

It provides specific context: it's for your own tracked commitment and requires the api_key that opened it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear this is for checking one's own commitment status, not for other verification tasks.

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