mnemosyne_agenda_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses that there is no archive, removal cannot be undone, repeating events are collapsed to one occurrence with cadence and next date, times are machine-local, and headless operation depends on dev install vs npm install. This goes far beyond basic read-vs-write labeling.

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: purpose, ID requirement, mutation caveats, repeating-event behavior, timezone, environment constraint, and scope. The most important operational guidance is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the caller gets back. It does: appointments with IDs, one entry for repeating events with cadence and next occurrence, and local times. Combined with full parameter coverage the tool is effectively self-contained for an agent to use 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, though it does clarify the semantics of repeating events, which helps interpret from/to and include_past results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the human's calendar back' with a time-window scope. It also names the essential output (appointment IDs) and differentiates itself from the mutation siblings by explaining that update/remove require these IDs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE mnemosyne_agenda_update or mnemosyne_agenda_remove, explains that those tools identify appointments by ID only, and warns about irreversible removal. It also gives environment-specific guidance for dev installs vs npm installs, leaving no ambiguity about when the tool works.

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