get_reminders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose important traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), sorting order, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality with zero waste. Front-loaded with the main purpose followed by filter options. Every word earns its place with no redundant 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 read operation with 7 well-documented parameters but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks context about behavioral traits, result format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing the filter types (list, completion status, priority, date range, search text) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'reminders' with the core functionality of filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reminder' (singular) by implying it returns multiple items, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'list_reminder_lists'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the filtering options suggest usage for querying multiple reminders, there's no mention of when to choose this over 'get_reminder' (for single items) or 'list_reminder_lists' (for list metadata).

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