nexo_reminder_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads a reminder and returns a READ_TOKEN needed for mutations. This indicates a safe read operation with a side effect of returning a token, which is useful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides an important usage instruction. No unnecessary 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is retrieved (reminder with history and usage rules) and that it returns a READ_TOKEN. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and usage.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not further explain the parameter, but since it is a simple string identifier and the tool name implies what it represents, the meaning is clear. A higher score would require explicit mention of the parameter.

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 reads a reminder with its history and usage rules. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('reminder'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_create or nexo_reminder_update.

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 advises to call this tool before update/delete/restore/note operations and to use the returned READ_TOKEN. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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