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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., irreversibility, permissions, or behavior if already completed).

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 concise with a clear main action and an args section. It is front-loaded but could be more structured or formal.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic usage and parameter source. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 schema has a single parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the id is obtained from list_reminders, which is valuable context.

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 explicitly states the action (mark as completed) and the resource (reminder by id). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, update, list.

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 description instructs to first use list_reminders to obtain the id, providing a prerequisite step. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameters, omitting details like idempotency, authentication needs, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.

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 concise, using a Chinese sentence followed by parameter documentation in English. It wastes few words, though the 'Args:' header could be omitted for brevity. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the essential parameters but lacks information on return values, errors, or post-creation behavior, which would be useful for a creation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'title: 提醒的标题' and 'due: 截止时间，格式 2026-06-04 18:00，可选', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. The format example for 'due' is particularly helpful.

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 clearly states '创建一条提醒事项' (create a reminder item), specifying a concrete verb and resource. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like complete_reminder, delete_reminder, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names imply distinct actions, the description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It truthfully states that the tool deletes a reminder, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or return value, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the action and providing necessary context without verbosity.

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?

Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could mention the result (e.g., success message or error), but it covers the essential information.

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 description explains the meaning of the reminder_id parameter and suggests how to obtain it via list_reminders, adding value beyond the schema's bare type and zero coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'reminder', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_reminder and list_reminders by specifying the action of deletion.

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 description advises using list_reminders first to obtain the id, providing a clear prerequisite. It implicitly distinguishes from other actions like completing, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior (filtering by completion time, not due time) and optional parameters. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any limitations beyond the start advice.

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?

Reasonably concise with a clear separation of purpose and parameter details. A bit of redundancy in the examples could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Completeness is good given the simplicity: purpose, parameter semantics, and usage advice are covered. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear return context (completed reminders). Could mention if it returns all fields or a summary.

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?

Both parameters are explained in detail: format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM), optional, and concrete examples for 'past week'. This adds significant value since the schema has 0% description coverage.

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?

Clearly states it queries completed reminders with specific filtering by completion time. The description explicitly distinguishes this from listing all reminders (sibling list_reminders) by emphasizing '已完成' and '完成时间'.

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?

Provides context for when to use (reviewing/completing tasks like past week interviews) and gives practical advice to always pass a start to avoid large result sets. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It clarifies that only uncompleted reminders are listed and explains parameter effects. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details beyond mentioning ids.

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 concise with two paragraphs and a parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear purpose. No fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional params, the description covers use case and parameter semantics well. It lacks explicit output schema info, but mentions returning ids and uncompleted reminders. Could improve by stating that no output schema is provided.

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 0%, so the description fully explains parameters: date formats, example values, conditions for use (e.g., include_undated only when start/end given). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists uncompleted reminders for viewing, modifying, deleting, or completing. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on uncompleted reminders and includes id retrieval.

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 description says when to use (before viewing/modifying/deleting/completing) and when to use time range filtering. It implies not for completed reminders, but does not explicitly name list_completed_reminders as alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates an update operation but omits details like whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if both optional fields are omitted, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise with a purpose sentence followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and each part is relevant. Minor improvement could be more international phrasing, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains purpose and parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, or behavior on missing id. It meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: reminder_id usage via list_reminders, new_title as optional, and new_due with a format example. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool modifies a reminder's title or due time, specifying the resource (reminder) and action (modify). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_reminder, delete_reminder, or complete_reminder.

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 description advises first using list_reminders to obtain the id, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for completing reminders) or mention alternatives.

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