reminders_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), returns up to 100 reminders, and includes default behaviors for parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope, filtering options, and return limits without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context, which would help an agent use it correctly in broader workflows.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by list name and completion status, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., format of list names or completion logic).

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 action ('List reminders') and resource ('from Apple Reminders app'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reminders_add' (create) and 'reminders_search' (search). It explicitly mentions filtering capabilities and the return limit, 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 provides clear context for usage by mentioning optional filtering by list name and completion status, and it implicitly contrasts with 'reminders_search' by focusing on listing rather than searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reminders_search' or 'calendar_list_events'.

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