create_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (create), the default list behavior, optional parameters, and return value. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple create operation, it provides sufficient 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, including the date format example. No fluff 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?

The description covers all parameters and return value, making it complete for a simple CRUD creation tool. It lacks details on potential errors or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 description adds full meaning to all four parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains name, list_name (including default behavior), due_date (with example format), and notes. This goes far beyond the schema titles and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new reminder in the macOS Reminders app.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_reminders (read), update_reminder, complete_reminder, and delete_reminder.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'create' and the description of adding to a list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_reminder or complete_reminder. Exclusions and alternatives are not mentioned.

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