formation_run_election83b_remindersRunElection83bReminders runs the 83(b) reminder sweep (not-started nudges + deadline-relative sign/file reminders + late notice). Reviewer-only; also run in-process by the scheduled cron subcommand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sent | No | ||
| errors | No | ||
| scanned | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the sweep includes (nudges, deadline reminders, late notice) and the reviewer-only restriction. It does not explicitly disclose side effects like sending emails, but the term 'reminders' implies this. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage restrictions. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the sweep's content, the second states authorization and automation context. No fluff or 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers the purpose, the specific reminder types, the intended caller (reviewer-only), and the cron integration. The output schema handles return values, so no further description is needed.
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 one boolean parameter 'dryRun' with no description coverage. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the schema provides enough meaning, but the description could have elaborated on the effect of dryRun (e.g., preview only). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the simplicity of a single boolean parameter makes this acceptable.
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 'runs the 83(b) reminder sweep' and specifies its three components (not-started nudges, deadline-relative sign/file reminders, late notice). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like formation_record_election83b_filing and formation_get_election83b_prefill.
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 usage context: 'Reviewer-only; also run in-process by the scheduled cron subcommand.' This specifies who should invoke it and gives an automatic alternative. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.