Access guidance for setting and managing reminders within Claude's note-taking system to track tasks across sessions.
Get help on using reminders
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "help"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Get help' implies a read-only, informational operation, but the description doesn't specify what kind of help is returned (text documentation, examples, interactive guidance), whether authentication is required, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.
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 perfectly concise at just four words: 'Get help on using reminders.' Every word earns its place - 'Get' (verb), 'help' (action), 'on using' (scope), 'reminders' (domain). There's zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it immediately understandable.
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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool's purpose but lacks details about what the help contains, how it's formatted, or when it's most useful. For a help tool that presumably returns informational content, more guidance about the nature and format of the returned help would be beneficial.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 purpose as 'Get help on using reminders' - a specific verb ('Get help') with a clear resource domain ('using reminders'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions on reminders (check, clear, complete, delete, move, create) by focusing on assistance rather than direct manipulation. However, it doesn't specify what form the help takes (documentation, examples, troubleshooting).
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 indicate whether this should be used before attempting other reminder operations, when users are confused about syntax, or as a general reference. With six sibling tools performing various reminder operations, the lack of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.