apple_reminders_list

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

The description repeats the readOnlyHint annotation (read-only) and adds 'local' as minor context. It does not disclose behaviors like default limits, filtering options, inclusion of completed items, or any return format. With annotations already covering safety, this adds minimal value.

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 and front-loaded with 'Read-only', using a single sentence without waste. However, it is borderline under-specified, though not as extreme as a pure tautology; it provides at least the core action and resource.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as how filtering by lists works, the meaning of includeCompleted, default behavior, or what the output looks like. It is too sparse to fully handle the tool's complexity, leaving significant gaps for the agent to guess.

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 low (33% – only 'lists' has a description), and the description does not mention any parameters. The parameter names (limit, includeCompleted, lists) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their semantics or relationships, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('local Apple Reminders'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_reminders_list_lists (which lists lists, not reminders). However, it does not explicitly mention this distinction, relying on the tool name and the word 'Reminders' to infer the resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases beyond the bare 'list local Apple Reminders.' The agent has no help in deciding between this, list_lists, or other reminder tools.

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