get_reminder_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Lists' indicates a read-only operation, and 'on this Mac' clarifies that it operates on the local system. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether special permissions are needed, or how it behaves if Reminders.app is not available. Some context is given but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. It includes necessary clarifying details ('lists (folders)', 'Apple Reminders (Reminders.app)', 'on this Mac') without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the exact data source and the nature of the result. It doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., an array of folder names), but the verb 'Lists' and the tool name make that obvious. Minor gap is that it doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or accessibility, but it's generally complete for this simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters. The description correctly implies that no input is required, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties).

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'lists (folders) in Apple Reminders (Reminders.app) on this Mac'. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_reminders (which lists individual reminders) and create_reminder_list (which creates folders), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the description's scope ('folders in Apple Reminders') clearly implies that this tool should be used when the agent needs to retrieve folder names, rather than actual reminders. It lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternatives like list_reminders, but the intended use case is reasonably inferable.

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