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 explaining behavior, but it only states 'List reminders' and describes parameters. It does not disclose default filtering behavior (e.g., whether completed reminders are excluded by default), sorting, or what happens when list_name is invalid. The parameter defaults are only in the schema, not in the description.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with 'List reminders'. The Args section is small and directly maps to the schema parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous content.

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?

This is a simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown here), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details such as default filtering, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to select it confidently among siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but meaningful explanations for both parameters: list_name as an optional specific reminder list and include_completed as a flag to include completed reminders. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it lacks examples or format details.

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 starts with 'List reminders', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_reminder_lists or get_overdue_reminders, but the resource and parameters make the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using list_reminder_lists to discover available lists or get_overdue_reminders for overdue-only queries. The Args section only explains parameters, not usage context.

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