Reminders Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'checks' and returns a boolean-like result, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe to call repeatedly or that it does not modify data, leaving some room for inference.

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, focused sentence that states the action, the resource, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 status-checking tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and what it returns. It could specify the exact return format (e.g., boolean) for full completeness, but the qualitative description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and the resource 'Apple Reminders authorization status', and it clarifies the purpose by indicating that it returns whether remindctl has permission. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage reminders data, making the 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?

The description implies the tool is used to verify authorization before or after other reminder operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools that perform the same function, the implied usage is clear, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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