notary__list_commitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, order, potential side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks transparency for a list operation.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a domain prefix and example values. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 that there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description is somewhat adequate but missing details like return format, pagination behavior, and whether all commitments are returned or limited. It serves the minimum viable purpose but leaves gaps.

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% description coverage and only specifies 'state' as a string or null with no enum. The description adds significant value by listing the possible filter states: PENDING, REVEALED, EXPIRED. This helps the agent understand valid inputs 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 'List commitments' and specifies optional filtering by state, which is the core purpose. It also provides context about the notary system. However, it could be more explicit about what commitments are and how they relate to the commit-reveal process, but overall it's clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs sibling tools like notary__commitment_status or notary__verify. The agent has no information about appropriate contexts for listing commitments versus checking a single commitment's status.

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