alexa_list_alarms_reminders

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely valuable context beyond them: the returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. It also discloses the return fields. It doesn't cover pagination or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the security caveat are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (id, label, device, date/time, on-state, recurrence) is necessary and present. The prompt-injection warning completes the picture for a read-only, open-world list tool; only minor behaviors like empty results are unaddressed.

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% and the enum for type is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'Optionally filter by type' adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the alarms, timers and reminders set on the account's Alexa devices') and it enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like alexa_create_reminder, alexa_cancel_alarm_reminder, and alexa_list_routines without opening any schema.

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?

It notes the optional type filter, which implies when to narrow results, but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one (e.g., vs. listing routines or lists). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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