Get Reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only restates that the tool fetches a single reminder by ID, which is essentially the tool's name plus parameter. It doesn't disclose return behavior, error handling, read-only status, or any side effects. The 'get' verb implies a read, but there's no explicit safety disclosure.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives actionable guidance on finding IDs. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the primary use case and points to list_reminders for ID discovery. However, it omits return format and error behavior, which are important in the absence 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (id, type integer, with description). The description's 'by its unique ID' adds little beyond the schema's existing 'The unique reminder ID.' Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb (get), the resource (a single reminder), and the identifying criterion (unique ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reminders (listing) and update_reminder (modifying), so the purpose is 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 explicitly names list_reminders as the way to find reminder IDs, providing a direct alternative workflow. It implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you have a specific ID) and when not (when you need to browse or search, use list_reminders).

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