get_reminder_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (retrieves) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the reminder notification settings are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 2-parameter retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication, return format, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally mention what kind of data is returned.

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 both parameters (app_id and preview) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('取得します' - retrieves/gets) and resource ('kintoneアプリのリマインダー通知設定' - kintone app reminder notification settings). It's specific about what is being retrieved, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_notifications' or 'get_per_record_notifications'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools with 'get_' prefixes that retrieve different types of notification or app settings, but no context is given about when this specific reminder notification tool is appropriate.

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