remind_get_classes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the returned payload fields and, importantly, warns that returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, which is operational guidance an annotation cannot convey. It stops short of noting pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the security caveat follows immediately, with no restated or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value disclosure, and it does so by listing the returned fields and permissions. Combined with the untrusted-content warning, an agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the uuids array including its source. The description's 'by uuid' and 'one or more' add only marginal confirmation of array semantics, matching the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail for one or more classes by uuid') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, join code/url, member and message counts, owner count, flags, edit permissions). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remind_list_entities and remind_get_messages.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by uuid' and the schema note that uuids come from remind_list_entities, but the description itself never states when to use this versus remind_list_entities or other lookups, nor any prerequisites. A competent agent can infer the flow, but nothing is explicit.

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