remind_healthcheck

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), yet the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the full error.kind taxonomy (no_credential, credential_rejected, edge_blocked, http, timeout, transport) and explicitly states it never returns the cookie or CSRF token. This is exactly the kind of failure-mode 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the failure taxonomy and then the safety note. The long error enumeration is dense but every item carries diagnostic value, so nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and largely does so by explaining the error.kind outcomes and the credential/token exclusion. It stops short of describing the success shape (e.g., a status or latency field), leaving a small gap for a zero-param diagnostic 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify and it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 ('Verify the Remind session end-to-end by running the smallest authenticated query') and is unmistakably distinct from siblings like remind_graphql or remind_send_message. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic probe, not a data-fetching call.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (checking whether a captured session still authenticates) and adds actionable interpretation guidance, notably that edge_blocked means re-signing in will not help. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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