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. The description only states what the tool does ('get current health reminder status and configuration') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what permissions might be required, whether it returns real-time or cached data, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool retrieves.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, response format) that would be helpful. For a status retrieval tool with no structured metadata, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'status and configuration' includes or how the data is returned, but it meets the bare minimum for 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, as none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema provides.

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: '获取当前健康提醒的状态和配置' translates to 'Get current health reminder status and configuration'. This specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('health reminder status and configuration'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_immediate_reminder' or 'start_reminder', which appear to be action-oriented tools rather than status retrieval 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for retrieving status/configuration (unlike siblings that perform actions like sending or starting reminders), there's no explicit mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or when to choose other tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the notification doesn't affect timers, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the system isn't running, whether notifications are guaranteed to deliver, or any rate limits. For a notification-sending tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavioral constraint ('不影响定时器'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and 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?

Given a notification-sending tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and one behavioral constraint. However, it lacks information about success/failure responses, error conditions, or system state requirements. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that performs an action with side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (message, title, sound) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('立即发送' - immediately send) and resource ('健康提醒通知' - health reminder notification), specifying it's a one-time notification that doesn't affect timers. It distinguishes from siblings like start_reminder/stop_reminder by emphasizing the immediate, non-recurring nature. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_status.

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 context by stating '不影响定时器' (doesn't affect timers), suggesting this is for one-off reminders separate from scheduled ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like start_reminder for recurring reminders or get_status for checking state.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic behavior (starts timer, pops system notifications). It doesn't disclose important traits like whether this requires system permissions, if it runs in background, error handling, or how it interacts with existing reminders. For a tool with potential system-level impact, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's core functionality with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 timer-starting tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about system requirements, persistence, and error behavior. Without annotations, it should provide more operational details for a tool that interacts with system notifications.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 with specific verb ('启动' - start) and resource ('健康提醒定时器' - health reminder timer), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it creates a recurring timer (vs. send_immediate_reminder for one-time or stop_reminder for stopping).

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 when to use this tool (to start recurring reminders with system notifications) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_immediate_reminder or mention prerequisites. However, the context is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop') but doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., whether it's idempotent, if it returns confirmation, if it affects scheduled reminders, or if it requires specific permissions). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits behavioral details (e.g., effects, return values, error conditions) that would help an agent use it correctly in context with siblings.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply parameters exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('停止' meaning 'stop') and the target resource ('健康提醒定时器' meaning 'health reminder timer'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_reminder' or 'send_immediate_reminder' beyond the obvious semantic difference.

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 like 'start_reminder' or 'send_immediate_reminder', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a reminder must be running first) or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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