get_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on pagination, date range semantics, authentication, or other behavioral traits. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name, but no contradictions exist.

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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous wording. It efficiently states the resource and source (Clio) and enumerates example entry types.

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?

The tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, so return values and parameter details are covered structurally. However, the description lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 three parameters (date_to, date_from, matter_id) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get calendar entries' from Clio, and specifies entry types (hearings, deadlines, meetings). This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_time_entries or get_matter_tasks, though no other calendar-specific tool exists in the sibling list.

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 when calendar data is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since there is no competing calendar tool, the lack of explicit differentiation is less impactful, but the description does not offer any contextual hints beyond the basic purpose.

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