nag_until_done

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

Annotations provide minimal safety info (readOnly=false, not idempotent, not destructive). Description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: each firing re-reads task state, completing the task anywhere silences future nags, and final attempt is explicitly labeled. This gives the agent essential operational expectations.

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?

Three short sentences with key behavior front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: mechanism (repeat), termination conditions, re-read behavior, and final-attempt labeling. Could be more compact but no filler.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the overall mechanism but omits parameter formatting/semantics entirely—most critically what text expects, how task_id links to a task, how first_run_at should be formatted, and the meaning of interval_hours. The return behavior is also unstated.

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 carries the full burden of parameter explanation, and it fails to do so. It never explains text, chat_id, task_id, first_run_at, max_attempts, or interval_hours. The behavioral description implies some parameter meanings (task, attempts, reminders) but doesn't map parameters to their roles.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: repeats a reminder until task completion or attempts run out. Distinguishes itself from the sibling reminder_set by describing the conditional repetition behavior, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Description implies usage context clearly: use for reminders that should persist until the linked task completes. States the stopping conditions (task completion or attempts exhausted). Doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but behavioral distinction is implicit.

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