nexo_reminder_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a READ_TOKEN needed for mutations, implying read-only behavior and a token-based workflow. However, it does not detail the format of the response or any other behavioral constraints, but the essential traits are covered.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical usage guideline. There is no redundancy, and every word contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns 'history and usage rules' and a 'READ_TOKEN', which gives a good sense of the response. It also clarifies the tool's role in a workflow. The omission of parameter explanation slightly reduces completeness, but overall it is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description fails to mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema structure. The agent must infer that 'id' identifies the reminder, which is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'reminder', specifically including 'history and usage rules'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_create, nexo_reminder_update, nexo_reminder_delete, and nexo_reminders by focusing on reading a single reminder with additional details.

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 explicitly provides a usage guideline: 'before update/delete/restore/note, call this tool first and use the returned READ_TOKEN.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to other reminder mutation tools, establishing a necessary prerequisite.

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