compare_commitment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it only checks commitment anchors, flags dropped promises, and acknowledges the limitation in distinguishing fulfilled from abandoned commitments.

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, with two sentences plus a caveat. It is front-loaded, providing immediate clarity about the tool's purpose and limitations without extraneous text.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the parameters lack explanation. For a specialized tool with a caveat, the description provides sufficient context for usage, but the missing parameter semantics slightly reduce 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 0%, but the description does not explain the parameters (state_a, state_b, anchors) beyond the generic input schema. It adds no detail about their meaning, format, or usage, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 it is a compare specialized for commitments, focusing only on commitment anchors, and introduces the DROPPED_SILENTLY flag. It effectively differentiates from sibling compare tools by specifying its scope.

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 limits usage to commitment anchors and mentions the caveat about fulfilled vs abandoned. While it doesn't list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context and sibling names imply the specialization.

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