list_reminders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal key behavioral aspects: the tool returns reminders scoped to the current user and filters for active ones, which implies a read-only, personalized query. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty results, pagination, or any side effects, and the phrase 'current user' indirectly suggests authentication but this is not explicit. The description provides adequate but not extensive transparency.

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, well-structured sentence of eleven words, front-loading the main verb and object without any unnecessary modifiers or repetition. It conveys resource, scope, and filtering in a highly efficient manner, embodying ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (zero parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the essential scope: current user, active reminders, all work packages. However, it does not mention the return format, sorting, or pagination, nor does it describe what happens when there are no reminders. While probably sufficient for most use cases, the lack of any return-value or error-behavior details makes it only moderately complete, meriting a score above the minimum but below what a richer description could achieve.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object (100% schema coverage). According to the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 because there is no parameter information to convey. The description does not conflict with the empty schema and accurately adds no extra parameter-related detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and precisely identifies the resource as 'the current user's active reminders' with the scope 'across all work packages.' This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_work_packages' or 'list_actions,' none of which mention reminders. The singular focus on the current user and active status adds useful specificity.

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 usage for retrieving reminders belonging to the authenticated user and filters for active ones, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus an alternative tool or provide exclusions. No mention is made of alternatives (e.g., searching by work package) or when not to use it, leaving the usage context partially implicit.

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