MCP Reminder

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. '关闭/删除' suggests a destructive operation, but it doesn't clarify whether this permanently deletes the alarm or just dismisses it temporarily, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. The description mentions a return value ('操作结果' meaning operation result) but gives no details about format or possible outcomes.

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 brief with three lines, but the structure is inconsistent. The first line states the purpose clearly, but the Args/Returns sections use English labels with Chinese content, creating minor cognitive friction. While not verbose, the formatting could be more polished for better readability.

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 destructive operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return format. Given the sibling tools include alarm management functions, more context about how this fits into the workflow would be valuable.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by stating 'alarm_id: 闹钟ID' (alarm ID), which just repeats the parameter name in Chinese. It doesn't explain where to obtain this ID, what format it follows, or provide examples. For a single required parameter with zero schema coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 with specific verbs ('关闭/删除' meaning close/delete) and identifies the resource ('闹钟' meaning alarm). It distinguishes this as a dismissal/deletion operation rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling operations like snoozing or modifying alarms.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_pending_alarms' and 'add_alarm', there's no indication whether this should be used after checking alarms, whether it's for completed alarms only, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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