remind_owner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending an email, which implies a notification action, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what the email content includes, or potential side effects (e.g., rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a conditional clause for context, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a starting point. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., email format, success/failure responses) that would help an agent use it effectively, especially without annotations to fill in gaps. It meets minimum viability but has clear room for improvement.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids unnecessary parameter details, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema in this case.

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 action ('send a reminder email') and the target ('to verify workspace ownership'), with the condition 'if verification is pending' adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_owner' by focusing on reminders rather than initial registration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 usage when 'verification is pending,' providing some context for when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if verification is already complete) or alternatives (e.g., using 'register_owner' for initial setup), leaving room for ambiguity.

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