nexo_reminder_get

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a READ_TOKEN required for subsequent mutations, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond a simple read. It does not mention side effects (likely none) but lacks details on authorization or rate limits. Given no annotations, this is strong, but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives critical usage instruction. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 mentions return content (history, usage rules, READ_TOKEN). However, it doesn't specify the format or any constraints. For a simple read tool with siblings, it covers essential context but could be more detailed about the output.

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' (string) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter, relying on the name alone. Since it's a single obvious parameter, the impact is moderate, but the description fails to add semantic value.

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 'Read a reminder with its history and usage rules,' specifying the verb (read) and resource (reminder), and distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_create, nexo_reminder_delete, etc., which have different actions.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'before update/delete/restore/note, call this tool first and use the returned READ_TOKEN,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and referencing alternative mutation tools, which are siblings.

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