기본 캘린더 속성 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that original text (descriptions, attendees) is not returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what happens if userId is invalid/absent, response format, or auth/permission requirements. Since userId is not required (0 required params), it's unclear what happens without it.

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, efficient sentence plus a clarifying exclusion clause. Both sentences earn their place—the first states the purpose, the second clarifies limitations. No fluff, though it could be slightly more informative within its brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, only 1 param (0 required), and 0% schema coverage, the description should do significantly more. It clarifies what's NOT returned but doesn't state what IS returned, whether userId is optional, error behavior, or how this relates to sibling calendar tools. For a read-type query tool, critical behavioral gaps remain.

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%, and there is only one parameter (userId) with a minLength=1 constraint but no description. The tool description mentions '구성원' (member) implying userId refers to a member, but it doesn't explain what values are valid (email, internal id, etc.) or whether the parameter is optional despite being schematically not required. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 it queries a member's default calendar properties and clarifies it does not return original text like event descriptions or attendees. The verb '조회' (query/inquire) plus '기본 캘린더 속성' (default calendar properties) specifies the resource clearly. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the title implies a default-calendar scope distinct from the personal/events list tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this is called before creating events, paired with events-list tools, or what prerequisite context is needed. The description only clarifies what it does NOT return, but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to the sibling calendar and directory tools.

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