Calendar Agent by Nova (CIVAI)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation via the word 'add'. It says nothing about required inputs for a calendar event, authentication, whether the event lands on a default calendar, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the 'Run Google calendar action:' prefix is filler that consumes the front-loaded position without conveying information. Under-specification, not length, is the problem.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero required parameters documented, the description leaves critical gaps: what fields define the event, which calendar it targets, and what happens on success. It is too thin to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'detail' parameter, so the schema already documents it and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about what 'detail' should contain for an add-event action, so it does not exceed that baseline.

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 names a verb and resource ('add event' on Google calendar), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like delete_event and update_event. However, the boilerplate prefix 'Run Google calendar action:' adds no information and the phrasing is a generic wrapper rather than a specific statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_event, delete_event, or the check_events_* siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether any side effects occur. It is not misleading, but it is very thin for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short, but the prefix 'Run Google calendar action:' is redundant filler that could be removed. The useful information ('check events today') is front-loaded after the filler, so structure is adequate but not maximally 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?

For a simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it requires calendar selection, or any behavioral constraints. An agent has only the name and schema to infer 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional parameter 'detail' is documented in the schema as 'Task-specific details from the objective.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'check events today' for Google Calendar. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool check_events_week by the 'today' scope, though the prefatory 'Run Google calendar action' is generic filler.

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 name and description imply when to use it (for today's events versus the sibling check_events_week), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct reference to alternatives. Usage is only inferred from the wording.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: it does not state that the operation is a read, what the time window's boundaries are, whether it is scoped to the authenticated user, or what is returned. 'Check' weakly implies read-only, but nothing is confirmed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is nothing wasted because there is nothing there.

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?

For a calendar-query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at least define the time window and expected return. Both are missing, leaving a sibling-ambiguous call with an underspecified 'detail' argument.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about what 'detail' should contain, but with a single fully-documented parameter this meets the baseline.

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 largely restates the tool name ('check events week'), adding only the 'Google calendar action' domain. It does not clarify what 'week' means (current week, upcoming week, or an unspecified window) or what form the result takes, so the agent learns little beyond the identifier itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite an identical-purpose sibling (check_events_today) sitting directly next to it. The agent must infer the difference purely from the names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether this ends the turn, whether it mutates state, whether it should be combined with other tool calls, or what the reply consists of — significant gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the trigger condition; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though it is efficient at a fairly low level of detail.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional param, no output schema), so the short description is defensible, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least clarify the conversational fallback's role in the turn lifecycle. It stops just short of that.

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?

There is one optional parameter (reply_hint) whose schema description already covers it at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or influence guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

It gives a verb ('reply conversationally') and a trigger condition ('when the request is ambiguous or needs clarification'), which separates it from the calendar siblings by function. However, the 'resource' is nebulous — there is no statement of what the reply acts on or produces, so the agent must infer it is a non-action fallback.

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 names one condition for use: ambiguity or need for clarification. It implies, but never states, that the event-management siblings (add/update/delete/check events) are the alternative when the request is clear, leaving the when-not boundary to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, or reversibility. 'Run Google calendar action' hints at a server-side operation but leaves it ambiguous whether this is a pure computation or a mutating calendar change.

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 with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain expected inputs or return behavior, and it does neither. An agent cannot confidently construct the 'detail' payload or anticipate the result from this text alone.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'detail' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about what form the timezone-conversion detail should take.

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 phrase 'convert timezone' restates the tool name, wrapped in a generic 'Run Google calendar action:' prefix. It adds only that the action belongs to Google Calendar, with no statement of what is actually converted (an event's time? a timestamp?) or any distinction from siblings like add_event or update_event.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, what inputs it expects, or what alternatives exist for time handling. Nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this and the other calendar actions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing. It does not state that deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, what permissions are needed, or how recurring events are handled. The word 'delete' only weakly implies destruction.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted clauses, and the operant verb+resource is front-loaded after a brief boilerplate prefix. It is efficient, though the low information density reflects under-specification rather than good editing.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete: it never explains permanence, target identification, or side effects. The parameter set is also odd for a delete operation, and nothing in the description compensates for that ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema itself already documents 'detail'. The description adds no meaning about how 'detail' should be formatted or what it must contain to identify the target event, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('event' in Google Calendar), which distinguishes it from siblings like add_event, update_event, and check_events_*. However, the prefatory boilerplate 'Run Google calendar action:' adds no discriminating information, and no scope details (single event vs. recurring series) are given.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_event or add_event, no prerequisites, and critically no warning that this is a destructive, likely irreversible operation. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing: not whether it mutates state, whether the event must be identified, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. The single vague word "update" carries no behavioral weight.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing — the sentence conveys almost no actionable information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no way to identify which event is updated, the description is critically incomplete. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke this safely or correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about what "detail" should contain, but the schema already documents it.

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?

"Run Google calendar action: update event" is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a filler prefix. It does name the resource (Google Calendar), but gives no scope, target, or distinction from siblings like add_event or delete_event.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. The agent cannot tell from this text why it would call update_event rather than add_event or delete_event.

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