GetRemind

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. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the RemindId doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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 a single, efficient Chinese phrase that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more specificity about what '详情' (details) encompasses.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, whether there are any prerequisites for using the tool, or how it differs from similar 'Get' tools in the sibling list. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this 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 input schema has 100% description coverage (RemindId is documented as '自定义监控规则的ID' - custom monitoring rule ID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 '获取自定义监控报警规则详情' (Get custom monitoring alarm rule details) clearly states the action (get) and resource (custom monitoring alarm rule details), but it's somewhat vague about what 'details' specifically include. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'Get' siblings like GetAlertRule, GetDataQualityRule, or GetDIAlarmRule, which appear to retrieve similar monitoring/alerting resources.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve various monitoring/alerting rules (GetAlertRule, GetDataQualityRule, GetDIAlarmRule), there's no indication of what makes 'custom monitoring alarm rules' different or when this specific tool should be selected over others.

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