تقویم من یا پروژه

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: placement is by reminder time, deadline-only tasks are absent, and repeating tasks and time-less tasks are returned in separate buckets. This is exactly the kind of return-shape context an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or output format, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and each one carries distinct information (scope, placement rule, exclusions, duplicate-avoidance). No filler or repetition of the tool name. Slightly dense but 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what is and is not returned (deadline-only tasks excluded; repeating and time-less tasks separated). Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all four parameters, so an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and every parameter (by, year, month, project_id) is documented in the schema itself, including the reminder-vs-deadline enum semantics and Jalali defaults. The description's remark about reminder-time placement echoes the `by` default without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource pair ('Tasks on the Mizito calendar') and bounds it to one Jalali month, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It clarifies the calendar's organizing principle (tasks placed by reminder time) which separates it semantically from mizito_list_tasks or mizito_get_gantt. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Check it before adding events to avoid duplicates' gives a concrete precondition for calling the tool. The note that a task with only a deadline is not on the calendar implicitly tells the agent when this view is the wrong one. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. list_tasks or get_gantt) for those excluded cases, so there is context but no explicit routing.

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