list_calendars

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states that the list includes only calendars the user can access, providing some scope context, but it does not disclose details about return structure, ordering, or any side effects (though 'list' implies read-only).

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, clear sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently captures the core functionality. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but the simple nature of listing calendars makes this acceptable.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing to add.

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 it retrieves the list of calendars available to the user. It uses a specific verb ('取得します' – retrieves) and resource ('カレンダーの一覧' – list of calendars), and distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_calendar' by focusing on listing all accessible calendars rather than a single one.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'list' and the scope 'accessible' imply usage for enumerating calendars, but no direct comparison to 'get_calendar' or other tools is given.

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