Read all saved reminders and shopping list entries when you need to recall tasks or items. Just ask what to do or what's on the list, and get the full details.
Legge tutte le cose da ricordare e la lista della spesa. Usalo quando l'utente chiede cosa deve fare, cosa aveva segnato o cosa c'e' nella lista della spesa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('Legge'), implying no side effects, and it names all data sources involved. It does not describe output format or ordering, but this is minor for a simple read 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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and resource; the second gives concrete usage triggers. The action is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough operational and usage context. It could mention the return format, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking such a simple tool.
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 and the input schema fully documents that, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter explanation is needed in the 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 uses a specific action verb ('Legge' / reads) and identifies the exact resources: all things to remember and the shopping list. This clearly differentiates it from the add/remove reminder sibling 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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks what to do, what they had noted down, or what is on the shopping list. It does not explicitly mention exclusions, but the trigger conditions are concrete and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.