set_reminder

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

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fires a notification, accepts natural-language time, and returns a cancelable ID. This covers the core behavior, though it omits prerequisites like macOS notification permissions.

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 three concise sentences: first states the core action, second gives time examples, third explains the return value. No redundant or unnecessary text; front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, how time is expressed, and what it returns. It lacks explicit error handling or permission details, but the schema and sibling references fill in most gaps.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions and examples for both time and message (100% coverage). The tool description repeats these examples without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline expected from schema coverage.

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 it schedules a macOS notification at a specified time, with specific examples of natural-language input. This directly distinguishes it from siblings like list_reminders and cancel_reminder by its action and output.

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 implicitly provides workflow context by noting the returned ID can be used with cancel_reminder. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_reminders or other alternatives, though the simplicity makes the usage obvious.

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