calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, mutation effects, reversibility, return format, or what `open` does. The word `create` implies a write operation, but no meaningful behavioral context is supplied.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though for a four-operation, 13-parameter tool it is arguably too sparse to be fully structured.

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?

This is a complex multi-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain operation routing and behavioral expectations. Instead, it provides only a one-line summary, leaving major gaps around list behavior, create side effects, open semantics, and return values.

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 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and even omits the `list` operation that the schema exposes.

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 specific verbs and a clear resource: searching, creating, and opening calendar events in Apple Calendar. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as notes and reminders by resource, but it omits the supported `list` operation and does not explicitly route against alternatives.

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 some actions but gives no when-to-use guidance, no operation-selection advice, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must inspect the schema enum to discover the full operation set, including `list`.

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