set_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reminders auto-archive after being shown, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like whether it checks for duplicates or if there's a limit on active reminders.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information without any fluff. It front-loads the key functionality and usage guidance.

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, no annotations), the description is adequate. It covers purpose, trigger, and lifecycle (auto-archive). Minor gap: could mention persistence across sessions or per-user scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear (content: what to remind, ttl: duration format). The tool description does not add additional semantics 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 sets a reminder that surfaces automatically at session start. It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (reminder), and the auto-surfacing distinguishes it from other tools like saving tasks or memories.

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 explicitly recommends usage for follow-ups, things to check, or deferred work, providing clear context. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling tools are mostly memory/task related, making the guidance sufficient.

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