list_commitments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that RadMail drafts follow-through on due days (never auto-sent) and includes safety warnings about untrusted data and hard-stops. This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Safety warnings are important but could be better separated from the core functionality. No redundant information.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description provides adequate context on the tool's purpose and response safety block, but lacks detailed explanations of input parameters and return values. It is sufficient but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain most parameters (focus, limit, token, agentId, verbosity). It implies that 'messages' contains the batch of promises, but fails to compensate for the other parameters with low schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('list'), resource ('open promises'), and context ('from a batch', 'what you owe and to whom'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'search' or 'triage' by focusing on commitments extracted from email batches.

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 usage by stating it lists open promises from a batch, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like 'search' or 'triage'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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