create_reminder_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new list but doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or how it interacts with existing lists (e.g., duplicate names). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, list ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of creating a resource in a system like macOS Reminders, more context is needed for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no examples, constraints, or context about naming conventions). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new reminder list in macOS Reminders app'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_reminder' (which creates individual reminders) or 'rename_reminder_list' (which modifies existing lists), missing an opportunity for full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing macOS Reminders app access), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing lists), or explicit alternatives among the siblings like 'rename_reminder_list' for modifying lists or 'create_reminder' for adding items to lists.

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