notary__commitment_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'salt/digest stay hidden' but does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, what errors may occur (e.g., if commitment_id doesn't exist), or any authorization needs. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 a single sentence with a namespace prefix, which is concise. However, the prefix adds some redundancy. It is front-loaded but lacks structural elements like bullet points or clear separation of behavior and usage.

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 simple (single parameter, no output schema), but the description fails to indicate what the output represents (e.g., status enum, timestamps), error conditions (e.g., missing commitment), or any side effects. It feels incomplete for a status-check tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage, meaning the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'commitment_id' in the input schema title, and the description does not add any semantics (e.g., format, example, or what it represents beyond the name). The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 provides the current record for a commitment in the pre-reveal phase, distinguishing it from sibling tools like notary__commit (to create), notary__reveal (to reveal), and notary__verify (to verify). The verb 'record' and resource 'commitment status' are specific.

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 phrase 'pre-reveal' implicitly suggests using this tool before revealing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like notary__list_commitments or notary__verify. No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is provided.

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