commitment_surface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is read-only, silent by default, selectively surfaces events, and returns only title+time without the event body. This goes beyond basic schema info and gives the agent clear expectations about output and side effects. It does not describe error behavior or edge cases, but for a read-only view it covers the essential traits.

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 paragraphs: the first gives a punchy overview with trigger conditions and payload scope, the second clarifies the 'now' parameter. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure flows from high-level concept to operational detail. No redundant phrases or filler text.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description provides the core purpose, triggering rules, return content, and one parameter default. However, it omits the meaning of the required 'app_id' parameter, and does not mention ordering, pagination, or behavior when no items surface. While the description covers enough for basic usage, the missing app_id and lack of output details prevent a higher score.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'now' parameter fully ('ISO-8601 instant ... default current UTC') and 'lead_minutes' is given meaning through context ('starting within lead_minutes'). However, the required 'app_id' parameter is completely undefined, leaving a significant gap. The description adds some value but does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 states the tool provides a 'dew-rule view' for surfacing what deserves the operator's attention, with specific trigger conditions (imminent commitment, conflict, mismatch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commitment_list by focusing on attention-worthy events rather than a plain list of commitments. The metaphorical language ('dew-rule', 'split-stick halves') adds color but the core purpose is clear.

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: call this tool to get a view of items requiring attention, and it explains when it will produce output (silent by default, speaks under certain conditions). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like commitment_list or commitment_acknowledge, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is embedded in the behavioral description rather than direct instructions.

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