todoist_reminders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the three reminder types and natural language support, but doesn't describe permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on create/update/delete operations. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently lists key features (reminder types and natural language support). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic features but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, side effects, or response format. It's adequate as a high-level overview but insufficient for full operational understanding.

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 the three reminder types (relative, absolute, location) and natural language due dates, which are already covered in the schema's 'type' and 'due' descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manage reminders for Todoist tasks' with specific verb ('manage') and resource ('reminders for Todoist tasks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., todoist_tasks, todoist_projects) by focusing exclusively on reminders, not tasks, projects, or other entities.

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 by mentioning the three reminder types (relative, absolute, location) and natural language support, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_tasks for task management or provide any exclusions. It offers some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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