check_calendar_permissions

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by explaining that it verifies specific macOS Calendar.app access and that it returns 'granted status and step-by-step setup instructions if access is denied.' This adds valuable behavioral context about the response and prerequisites.

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 at two sentences, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary platform-specific details without any filler.

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 no-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, platform specifics, permission requirements, and what it returns (status + setup instructions). Combined with annotations confirming safety, there are no gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('local calendar accessibility'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling calendar tools (like list_calendars, add_to_calendar) by focusing specifically on permission/access verification, not calendar operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check if calendar is accessible) and mentions the platform-specific requirement (macOS permission). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know this is a pre-flight permission check rather than a calendar data operation.

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