get_follow_ups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering behavior (due date + priority) and overdue highlighting, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't state whether reaching out on snoozed/completed is destructive (it's a read, so its 'returns pending' wording implies read-only, which helps). It's a read operation, so risk is low, but pagination/return format details are absent.

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 compact at two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Get follow-up items that need attention') followed by behavior details. No wasted words. Could arguably be a single clear sentence, but the structure is efficient and effective.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior: what it returns (pending items), the ordering, and overdue emphasis. The description doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It's complete enough for a straightforward filtered-list tool, though it could mention when to prefer this over the overdue or person-scoped variants.

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 are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (limit, include_snoozed, include_completed all have defaults and descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this tool gets follow-up items needing attention, with specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and resource ('follow-up items'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_overdue_follow_ups (specific to overdue) and get_follow_ups_with_person (person-scoped) by being the general pending-list version, though it doesn't explicitly name differences.

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 implies this is the general 'get all pending follow-ups' tool by being unspecific about filters, and the schema clarifies what optional filters exist (limit, snoozed, completed). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_overdue_follow_ups or search_follow_ups, which are closely related siblings an agent might confuse it with.

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