iam_timer_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, how 'outstanding' or 'temporary' are defined, or what the response contains. It minimally discloses the core behavior but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately compact for a simple listing operation; the absence of parameter explanation is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 simple tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to guess the basic action. However, it lacks any context about due_only behavior, usage context, or why this tool exists alongside the sibling timer tools, so it is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented due_only parameter; it does not mention due_only at all. The parameter's name and default value provide some signal, but the description does not explain what 'due' means or how the filter changes results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('this mailbox's outstanding temporary reminders'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling timer mutators (set, clear, cancel, snooze) by being the only listing operation among them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iam_inbox, iam_read, or the other timer tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or suggestions about the appropriate context for listing reminders.

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