docketbird_get_calendar

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the company-wide scope uses a pre-computed rollup that may need building, and the tool will ask to retry if not built. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections, clear scoping, and no wasted words. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains highly organized.

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?

Given two optional parameters, no required params, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: usage scopes, prerequisites, rollup behavior, how days interacts with case_id. An AI agent can confidently decide when and how to invoke.

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 description fully explains both parameters: case_id (format, default empty, omit for company-wide) and days (company-wide only, default 7, clamped 1-90, ignored with case_id). This provides comprehensive meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves calendar entries (deadlines, hearings, conferences) from autocalendars. It distinguishes two scopes: with case_id for a single case, and without for company-wide view. The verb 'get' and resource 'calendar entries' are specific, and the tool is distinct from all siblings.

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?

Description explicitly tells when to use case_id vs. omit it, explains the company-wide scope and its pre-computed rollup behavior, and references prerequisite docketbird_create_autocalendar. It also notes days is ignored when case_id is provided, giving clear usage boundaries.

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