list_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List calendars' and does not mention pagination via page, the campaign scoping, ordering, or what the response contains. The tool appears read-only, but the description gives no detail about its actual runtime behavior, which is a significant gap.

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 only two words, which makes it extremely terse but not appropriately sized. It under-specifies the behavior needed for correct invocation. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary information, so this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain required context and return values, but it doesn't. An agent cannot know that campaignId is required to scope the listing or what the list returns. The description is far too minimal for even a simple list tool with a required parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters, but it does not. It adds zero meaning about campaignId being a required filter or page being for pagination. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description contributes nothing beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('calendars'), so an agent knows what entity this tool concerns. It doesn't explicitly state that calendars are scoped to a campaign, but the name and resource are distinct enough from siblings like get_calendar or list_quests. It's not a tautology and communicates the core action accurately.

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 get_calendar or the create/update/delete calendar variants. The required campaignId parameter implies it lists calendars within a campaign, but this is never stated. An agent must infer usage context from the schema rather than the description.

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