export_calendar

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the RFC 5545 ICS output format and the fact that it is a file snapshot rather than a live subscription. That snapshot-vs-subscription distinction is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs and would not get from the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is too thin: it omits scope/filter parameters (courseId, includeTasks, includeSubmitted) and pagination behavior (limit, offset), so an agent cannot call it correctly from the definition alone.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only implicitly references the 'period' (from/to) and says nothing about courseId, includeTasks, includeSubmitted, limit, or offset, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 specific verb ('만듭니다' / creates) and resource (a period's schedule as RFC 5545 ICS text), and even names the output format. No sibling is a competing calendar-export tool, so the lack of an explicit sibling contrast is not a real gap, but it also never differentiates from related tools like get_agenda or list_personal_tasks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The one useful signal is the negative constraint ('not an automatic calendar subscription,' i.e. a snapshot), which tells the agent what this is not, but it offers no conditions for choosing this tool over get_agenda or get_schedule_changes.

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