calendar_list_recurring_instances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but offers no details about pagination, time range handling, or other behavioral traits. The description is too minimal to ensure the agent fully understands the tool's behavior.

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, focused sentence: 'List instances of a recurring event.' Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition. This is an excellent example of concise, front-loaded writing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with five parameters and no annotation support. It does not explain what constitutes a 'recurring event instance,' how time_min/time_max filter results, or the role of calendar_id and max_results. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too much unsaid for confident invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the five parameters. Parameter names like event_id and time_max are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving unclear how parameters interact or are formatted.

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 'List instances of a recurring event' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly conveying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calendar_get_events, but the focus on 'recurring event instances' distinguishes it effectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendar_get_events. It simply states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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