check_reminders

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. 'Check your reminders' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, how results are returned (list format, pagination), or any rate limits. It fails to describe key behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and scope.

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 moderate complexity (a read operation with filtering) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'check' entails (e.g., returns a list of reminders with details), how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like safety. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'filter' clearly documented in the schema (enum values and default). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 'Check your reminders' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'check_reminders'. It doesn't specify what 'check' means operationally (list, view, verify status) or what resource scope is involved (all reminders, active ones, etc.). While it mentions 'your reminders' indicating personal scope, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from siblings like 'clear_old_reminders' or 'complete_reminder'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., to review pending reminders) versus when to use siblings like 'complete_reminder' (to mark one as done) or 'clear_old_reminders' (to remove outdated ones). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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