week_agenda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral aspects. It only mentions that multi-value filters accept either a list or a single string. It does not disclose authentication requirements (though 'Auth: V1+V2' is noted), rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or the nature of 'scheduled items'. Significant gaps remain.

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 concise: two sentences and a bracket with metadata. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a key behavior note. No information is repeated or verbose. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what 'scheduled items' are, how results are returned, pagination limits, date formats, or the effect of filters. For such a complex tool, this is completely inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only adds a note about multi-value filter flexibility. Parameter names like 'local_date', 'days', and 'text_query' are somewhat self-explanatory, but many parameters (e.g., 'time_from', 'time_to', 'timed_only') are not described at all. The description adds minimal value 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?

The description states the tool returns scheduled items for a multi-day window (default 7 days), which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It also mentions 'Category: Query & Search' and lists related tools, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'tasks_of_today' or 'events_of_today' beyond the window scope.

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 lists three related tools (query_agenda, tasks_of_today, events_of_today) in brackets, implying when to consider alternatives. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it state any prerequisites or context-specific recommendations.

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