create_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameters, omitting details like idempotency, authentication needs, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.

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 concise, using a Chinese sentence followed by parameter documentation in English. It wastes few words, though the 'Args:' header could be omitted for brevity. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the essential parameters but lacks information on return values, errors, or post-creation behavior, which would be useful for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'title: 提醒的标题' and 'due: 截止时间，格式 2026-06-04 18:00，可选', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. The format example for 'due' is particularly helpful.

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 '创建一条提醒事项' (create a reminder item), specifying a concrete verb and resource. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like complete_reminder, delete_reminder, etc.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names imply distinct actions, the description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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