reminders

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it requires EventKit and Full Disk Access, tags and parent links come from the Reminders store, and tags/subtasks cannot be written by any tool. It also explains fallback behavior via `coverage` when the store cannot be read.

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 dense and front-loads the output shape and `due` semantics. It is somewhat long for a one-parameter read tool, and the final 'Read-only. Hydrate none — pointers only' partly repeats earlier information, but most sentences add useful behavioral context.

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 output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in full, but it still clarifies that results are pointers and may include optional `coverage` details. It covers prerequisites, read-only limitations, and fallback behavior, which is complete for this 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 carries the burden for the single `due` parameter and does so by enumerating accepted values. It does not mention the schema's default of `today`, and the parenthetical about passing `folder` as `list_name=` is slightly ambiguous, but the main parameter meaning is clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List reminders as pointers.' It also clarifies scope by stating results are pointers only and distinguishes this read operation from the mutation-oriented reminder siblings such as create_reminder and update_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?

It clearly explains the main usage context and enumerates valid `due` filters: today, overdue, this-week, or a list name. It references `reminder_lists` when explaining list ids, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus `reminder_lists` or another reminder tool.

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