List reminders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that disabled reminders are hidden by default and that notification icon data is not returned, which are meaningful omissions and filtering behaviors. It does not mention ordering or return format, but for a read-only list tool this is substantial 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 compact and organized, with the main reminder-type enumeration followed by two short behavioral clauses. The first sentence is somewhat dense due to the parenthetical qualifiers, but every clause adds substantive information and no space is wasted.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers what is included, what is excluded by default, how to include disabled reminders, and one notable data omission. It does not address potential sibling overlap or sorting, but the core behavior is adequately specified.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter include_disabled is already described in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the audit use case ('audit them') and tying the parameter to the default omission behavior.

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 identifies the tool as listing configured Vetroscope reminders and enumerates the specific reminder types included, providing more detail than the title alone. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reminder_events, which would cover events rather than configured reminder definitions.

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 gives clear context around the default behavior (disabled reminders omitted) and when to set include_disabled for auditing, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as list_reminder_events or get_goals_progress. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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