notary__commitment_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the salt and digest stay hidden pre-reveal, a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not address other aspects like idempotency or side effects, but the core behavior is clearly stated.

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 prefix, which is concise. It front-loads the purpose. However, the namespace prefix '[notary — commit-reveal verifiable delivery proofs]' is somewhat redundant but does not detract significantly.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and a key behavioral point but omits details like return format or confirmation that it is a safe read. It meets basic needs but has room for improvement.

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 0% (no description for 'commitment_id'), and the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter. It only states the ID identifies the commitment but adds no format or source guidance. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Current record for a commitment (pre-reveal, salt/digest stay hidden)' clearly states it retrieves the status of a commitment, distinguishing it from siblings like notary__commit (which creates), notary__reveal (which reveals), and notary__list_commitments (which lists). The verb 'record' is specific to the commitment context.

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 use for checking a commitment's status but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like notary__list_commitments or notary__reveal. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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