list_reminders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior for include_completed (False) and the filtering semantics for list_name, but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor disclose return format, pagination, or sorting. It provides a basic but not comprehensive behavioral profile.

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?

Very concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block. No redundant text, information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (which covers return format), the description covers the essential behaviors. It could be slightly improved by mentioning that the operation is read-only, but it is complete enough to use correctly. It does not discuss alternatives, but that is not required for completeness.

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 schema provides types and defaults but no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains each parameter meaningfully: list_name filters by a specific list and handles empty input, while include_completed controls inclusion of completed items with its default. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 resource ('reminders from the macOS Reminders app'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_reminder_lists (which lists lists) and mutation tools. The purpose is unambiguous and front-loaded.

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?

Provides clear context on the tool's function and filtering options (list_name, include_completed). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools (e.g., list_reminder_lists) or any exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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