remind_list_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the payload includes unread counts, member counts, last-updated timestamps and per-stream permissions such as canSend, which is valuable given no output schema exists.

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 with zero filler; the resource and its returned fields come first, followed by the filtering options. Every clause carries 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 usefully enumerates what comes back, and the read-only/idempotent annotations mean no mutation caveats are needed. It falls slightly short on ordering, pagination, and the default behavior when no filter is supplied.

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 all three parameters (query, uuids, class_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes those filters in prose and adds no syntax, matching behavior, or precedence rules, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List conversation streams') and even enumerates the salient return fields (unread counts, member counts, last-updated, per-stream permissions). It is clearly distinct from remind_get_messages or remind_send_message, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

The second sentence ('Filter to specific uuids, a class, or a search string') implies when to narrow results, but it merely restates the three schema parameters rather than saying when to prefer this tool over remind_get_messages or remind_list_entities. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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