list_calendars

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavior itself. It states the accessibility scope ('accessible to the user') and that it returns uids, implying a read-only enumeration. It doesn't mention edge behaviors like empty results or pagination, but for a simple list tool the disclosure is minimally adequate.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the only additional useful information (uid usability). No 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 0-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description tells the agent what the result is (accessible calendars with uids) and how to use it downstream. It leaves minor details (e.g., fields returned for each calendar) to the output, but this is sufficient for selecting and invoking the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the returned uid, but there are no parameters to document.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('BlueMind calendars accessible to the user'). It also clarifies the output's purpose ('uid usable with search_events / list_events'), which distinguishes it from email-focused siblings like list_mail_folders and search_emails.

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?

It doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but it establishes a clear workflow context: call this before search_events/list_events to obtain calendar uids. The resource scoping to calendars vs mail folders implicitly disambiguates among siblings.

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