get_reminder

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.