list_calendar_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail (it includes all visible events, not only timeline actions) but does not discuss limitations, authentication, rate limits, or response format. With annotations present, this yields a decent but not deep transparency level.

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 puts the primary purpose upfront. It avoids redundant wording and is appropriately sized, but it could be structured with additional lines for parameter clarity. Still, it is efficient and focused.

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 and five parameters (two required, three optional), the description omits return-value details, parameter meanings, and any usage notes for the filters. It also lacks differentiation from list_upcoming_events. The provided context is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool with correct parameter choices.

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 0%, meaning no parameter is documented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information at all. While 'intervalo' hints that start and end are time bounds, the optional parameters (course_ids, include_site_events, include_user_events) are left entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action: 'Lee todos los eventos visibles de un intervalo' (lists all visible events in an interval), which is a clear verb+resource. The phrase 'no solo acciones del Timeline' clarifies it includes more than timeline actions, implying a broader scope. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_upcoming_events, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 implicitly suggests this is appropriate for retrieving all events in a range beyond just timeline actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. Without naming sibling tools, the agent must infer usage context.

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