commitment_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the response structure (status, count, commitments, next_cursor) and that only facts are returned, never the event body. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value — the field restriction, pagination mechanics, read-only nature, and state filter are all stated without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: response format, pagination, and state filtering. It does not address error handling or what happens with invalid state values, but these are minor given the explicit read-only nature and simple parameter semantics. Overall adequate for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains 'state' (filters to ACTIVE/WITHDRAWN) and 'cursor' (pass next_cursor from response), but does not explain 'app_id' (required) or 'limit' (default 50). The partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with zero schema 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 commitments, specifies the exact fields returned (uid/title/when/who/state/acknowledged/history length), and explicitly excludes the event body. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commitment_ingest and commitment_acknowledge without ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit pagination instructions (next_cursor as cursor) and explains the state filter behavior (ACTIVE/WITHDRAWN, case-insensitive, omit for all). However, it does not mention when to prefer this over related commitment tools (e.g., commitment_surface) or any conditions that would make it inappropriate, so usage guidance is partial.

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