outlook_list_calendar_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavior beyond listing events, such as whether it returns only future events, pagination, timezone handling, or whether it excludes certain event types. The description is too brief to convey potential side effects or limitations, leaving the agent with uncertainties.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is also vague. It is appropriately short for the low complexity, but it could provide more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is simple and front-loaded with the primary purpose, so it earns a 4 for conciseness, though it misses opportunities for clarifying details.

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, which could specify return values, the description lacks details about how the tool filters events (e.g., date range), how parameters interact, and potential limitations. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no annotations, so the description is insufficient for full clarity. An output schema exists, but without knowing its contents, it may not cover behavioral aspects.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. Although the parameter names (top, days_ahead, start_datetime, end_datetime) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their usage, e.g., how they interact or what format dates should be in. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 the tool lists upcoming calendar events and meetings, specifying the resource (calendar events) and the action (list). It distinguishes from siblings like outlook_create_calendar_event and outlook_list_messages by focusing on calendar events, which is clear enough.

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 implies usage for listing upcoming calendar events, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, it intuitively fits a common need and the sibling names are distinct enough that usage is clear. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of other tools, but the tool name and context make it reasonably clear.

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