commitment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and details the return fields and filtering behavior (case-insensitive state filter, omit for all). It also discloses a limitation: 'never the event body'. This adequately covers behavioral traits for a simple list operation, though it omits potential details like response ordering or auth requirements, which are not critical here.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the main purpose and scope. It includes the essential behavioral and filtering details without any filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover key return and behavior details. It lists the exact fields returned and explains the state filter, giving good completeness. However, it does not mention 'app_id' (a required parameter) or address potential edge cases like empty results, leaving a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It adds meaning for the 'state' parameter (filters to ACTIVE or WITHDRAWN, case-insensitive, omit for all), which is valuable. However, 'app_id' is required but not explained at all, leaving a gap in parameter semantics despite the description partially compensating.

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 explicitly states the tool lists the operator's persisted commitments, which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commitments'). It further clarifies the scope ('as FACTS only') and lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like commitment_surface by emphasizing 'never the event body'. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list commitments in a read-only manner and filter by state. It implicitly signals alternatives by noting 'never the event body', suggesting other tools handle event bodies, but it does not explicitly name an alternative. No direct when-not-to-use or exclusion statements are given, but the 'Read-only' and 'FACTS only' cues give practical guidance.

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