remind_get_messages

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: result ordering is 'newest-last' and returned items are typed as MessageItem, SystemMessageItem, or GapItem, including the paging-gap semantics. It does not detail pagination limits or attachment shape, but the added context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds the item-type taxonomy in a compact second sentence. It is appropriately sized and wastes little space, though the parenthetical item definitions make it slightly denser than necessary.

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 partially compensates by describing return item types and ordering. It remains incomplete on deeper pagination behavior and attachment fields, but for a read tool with complete annotations and a fully documented input schema, it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 both parameters, including the uuids source and the limit's meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating 'one or more chat streams,' so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read messages in one or more chat streams,' and adds scope via 'newest-last.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from write siblings like remind_send_message, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 'Read messages in one or more chat streams,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use guidance, or named alternative. The schema points to remind_list_chats for uuids, but the description itself does not route the agent.

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