list_commitments

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, never auto-sends, identifies untrusted fields with provenance 'untrusted-email-body', and mentions that the response includes a safety block with hard-stops. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured as a single paragraph with clear signposting using caps and line breaks. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It earns its length without being verbose.

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 7 parameters, two modes, and safety considerations, the description covers most aspects. It explains modes, safety, and mentions fields in the response. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response structure would improve completeness. Still, it provides adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 low (43%), but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of `messages` and `token` in the context of the two modes, and clarifies that `offset` only applies to connected mode. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of param descriptions.

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 the tool lists open promises with due window, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing two distinct modes (sandbox and connected), which sets it apart from other tools like draft_reply or list_right_now.

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 explains two usage modes: pass messages for sandbox or omit with API key for real commitments. It provides clear context on when to use each mode, but does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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