nexo_reminders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only 'check' operation, but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or imposes rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient. However, it is overly brief and lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and usage). Every word earns its place, but additional context could be added without becoming wordy.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but fails to explain the output format (e.g., list of reminders? with what fields?) or the behavior when no filter is specified. An agent using this tool would need to infer too much, especially with sibling tools like nexo_reminder_get that have clearer scopes.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'filter' with description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not mention that the default is 'due' or explain the effect of different filter values. Since schema already documents the parameter adequately, no penalty, but no added 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 'Check reminders and followups' clearly indicates the tool is for viewing/listing reminders and followups, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_get (which retrieves a specific reminder) or nexo_reminder_complete (which marks complete). The verb 'check' is vague, and the resource is identified but not scoped.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for reminder operations (e.g., create, update, delete), the description lacks context for when 'check' is appropriate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or references to other tools are given.

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