mnemosyne_agenda_list

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the calendar has no archive, removals cannot be undone, repeating events appear once with cadence and next occurrence, times are machine local, and daemon availability differs between dev and npm installs. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose and id relevance come first, then crucial behavioral caveats and environment requirements. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key return characteristics: each appointment includes its id, repeating events show cadence and next occurrence, and times are local. It also covers operational prerequisites and safety implications, making the tool complete to invoke correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and behavior. The description adds context about time windows and returned ids but no new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Read the user's calendar back: the appointments in a time window, each with the id you need to change or remove it.' It clearly differentiates this list tool from sibling mutation tools by explaining that it supplies the ids needed by mnemosyne_agenda_update and mnemosyne_agenda_remove.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'Call this before mnemosyne_agenda_update and mnemosyne_agenda_remove.' It also gives environment-specific guidance (dev install with headless daemon vs npm install needing the app running) and scopes access with 'Scope agenda:read.'

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