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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only status check without side effects, and specifies the binary outcome. It does not discuss failure modes or details of what 'trusted' means, but it is sufficient for a status-check tool.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the outcome. No filler or 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters), has an output schema to describe return values, and the description covers the essential purpose and result. The context is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the input schema is empty.

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 'check' with a clear resource ('saved iCloud session') and states the outcome ('trusted or needs 2FA'). It fully distinguishes this tool from the sibling reminder tools.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to determine whether the iCloud session is trusted or requires 2FA. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool uses Beijing time, which is already a schema default, and does not describe side effects, prerequisites, authentication, or behavior when creating child tasks.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Create') and conveys the most distinctive contextual detail (Beijing time) efficiently.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that does not cover input semantics, this description is severely inadequate. It leaves users without essential guidance on parameter usage, relationships, or operational constraints, making it nearly impossible to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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% for 9 parameters. The description hints at time_zone_name via 'Beijing time' and parent_reminder_id via 'child task', but fails to explain the required 'title' or any other parameters like due, all_day, flagged, list_id, priority, and description.

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 identifies the tool's action (create) and resource (reminder or child task), and adds the key detail of Beijing time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_reminder and delete_reminder by focusing solely on creation.

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 verb 'create' implies when to use the tool, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as update_reminder or set_reminder_completed. It mentions no exclusions or specific scenarios beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description discloses an important behavioral safeguard (the confirm=true requirement), but with no annotations, it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, side effects, or error conditions. The deletion itself is implied by the tool name, but the description adds limited transparency beyond the confirmation gate.

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?

Two short sentences: first states the purpose, second adds the essential confirmation instruction. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple delete tool, the description covers the core action and the key prerequisite, and the output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks any mention of irreversibility, permissions, or failure scenarios, which are relevant for a destructive operation. It is minimally adequate 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the confirm parameter ('pass confirm=true'), which is critical. However, reminder_id is not elaborated beyond its name, and no format or source is specified. The added meaning for confirm is valuable but incomplete overall.

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 'Delete a reminder' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (reminder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_reminder or list_reminders. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'caller must pass confirm=true after user approval.' This is a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't enumerate alternatives or situations when to avoid using this tool, though the match with siblings is obvious.

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

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 adds value by noting that timestamps are returned in Beijing time (+08:00), which is a meaningful detail. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found) or any other response nuances. The timezone mention is positive but not comprehensive.

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 a single, compact sentence that states the core purpose immediately ('Get one reminder by ID') and adds a valuable detail about timezone formatting. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and adds the timezone detail, which is helpful. It omits error handling, but for a basic get-by-ID operation, the description is reasonably complete given the presence of an output schema.

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 zero description coverage for parameters, and the description adds little beyond the parameter name. 'by ID' merely restates what 'reminder_id' already implies. No format, constraints, or examples are provided, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get one reminder by ID'. It specifies the resource (reminder), the verb (get), and the scope (one, by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like list_reminders or create_reminder. The addition of 'timestamps in Beijing time' provides a specific detail that further clarifies the tool's output behavior.

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 when a single reminder is needed by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like list_reminders or provide exclusion criteria. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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 states the tool lists lists and their stable IDs, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention access requirements or side-effect profile. The mention of stable IDs adds useful context about the return data.

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 a single sentence that directly states the purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers the core functionality without needing to explain return values. The only minor gap is explicit usage differentiation from sibling list_reminders, which is not critical.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies since the description need not compensate for parameter 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') and resource ('Apple Reminder lists') and adds the stable IDs detail, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_reminders. This is a precise, unambiguous statement of the tool's function.

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: the tool is for listing reminder lists and their IDs, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as distinguishing from list_reminders for individual reminders. The context is sufficient for a simple tool.

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

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

The timezone disclosure (+08:00) is a useful behavioral detail not inferable from the name or schema. However, with no annotations and no mention of pagination, default completion filtering, or other behavioral traits, significant aspects remain undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The timezone note is compact and relevant, making it appropriately sized and 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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits guidance on optional parameters and default behavior, which creates notable gaps for a list operation with no annotations.

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 description does not address any of the three parameters (limit, list_id, include_completed), and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema provides only names and defaults, so the agent must infer semantics, making the parameter meaning insufficiently clarified.

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 phrase 'List reminders' clearly identifies a read operation targeting reminder resources, and the plural form distinguishes it from get_reminder. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_reminder_lists, so it stops short of a top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the optional filtering parameters or default behavior. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'using Beijing time for completion' but doesn't explain how that affects behavior (e.g., whether it sets a completion timestamp, how timezone conversion works, or side effects of reopening). The toggling nature is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that gets to the point quickly. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices some detail for brevity.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the timezone nuance is under-specified, and for a reversible action (complete/reopen) there is no mention of prerequisites or consequences, leaving gaps for the agent.

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. It hints at the 'completed' boolean via 'Complete or reopen' but does not explicitly map parameters or explain their formats. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds minimal value beyond a vague behavioral hint.

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 a specific action ('Complete or reopen a reminder') and the resource, and mentions 'Beijing time for completion' which adds a distinguishing detail. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like 'update_reminder' for differentiation, though the phrasing is clear enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'update_reminder' which could also modify reminders. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative references.

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

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 discloses only one behavioral trait: due values are normalized to Beijing time. It does not mention whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether the update is partial versus full, what the response contains, or any error/authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of filler, earning its place. However, it may be too sparse given the tool's complexity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Despite having an output schema that could explain return values, the description is incomplete for an 8-parameter update tool. It lacks guidance on which parameters are optional, whether the update is partial (though 'supplied fields' implies this), how clear_due interacts with due, and any usage caveats. The timezone note is a useful addition but does not make the description sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It fails to do so; the only parameter-related note is about 'due' normalization, which is a behavior rather than a full explanation of the parameter's format or constraints. Most parameters (e.g., priority, clear_due, flagged) are left entirely to their schema types and titles.

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 verb 'Update' plus the resource 'supplied fields' clearly indicates a partial update of an existing reminder. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_reminder, delete_reminder, and set_reminder_completed, though it does not explicitly state which fields are supported (that is left to the schema).

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any exclusions (e.g., 'use create_reminder for new reminders'). The context of sibling names implies its role but does not provide direct guidance.

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