remind_get_messages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), yet the description adds real value beyond them: the typed item model (MessageItem/SystemMessageItem/GapItem with `size`), the newest-last ordering, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party and untrusted. That trust warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, with the read-scope stated first before the item typing and safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 steps in to describe the return shape (typed items, paging gaps) plus ordering and the untrusted-content caveat. An agent has everything needed to interpret and safely use the response.

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 both parameters are self-documenting; baseline is 3. The description's explanation of GapItem tangentially clarifies what 'max non-gap messages per stream' means for `limit`, but no direct parameter syntax or format detail is added.

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 ('Read messages in one or more chat streams'), and adds the ordering scope ('newest-last'). This clearly separates it from remind_list_chats (which enumerates streams) and remind_send_message (which writes).

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 the resource name, and the schema notes uuids come 'from remind_list_chats', but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings. Adequate but not directive.

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