명시적 캘린더 일정 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 only mentions a 31-day limit, but does not state pagination behavior, session/permission requirements, whether results are sorted, what happens when the range exceeds 31 days (error vs truncation), or the return format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single, clean sentence in Korean that front-loads the core action and scoping. It is appropriately succinct without wasted words, though it could add a reference to sibling alternatives without becoming verbose.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is far from complete. It doesn't clarify the 31-day boundary behavior, the relationship to default/personal calendar listing siblings, or the purpose of userId. For a calendar-list tool with multiple related siblings, this is inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. However, it only references calendarId implicitly (via 'calendarId가 명시된'). fromDateTime, untilDateTime, and userId semantics are entirely unexplained—including the ISO8601 format, the relationship between from/until, and whether userId is required for cross-user access.

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?

Description states the verb (조회/list), resource (calendar events), and a key scoping constraint (calendarId가 명시된 캘린더, explicit calendar). The '최대 31일 범위' adds a meaningful boundary. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool works_calendar_default_events_list, which likely serves a similar purpose for default calendars.

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 for calendars with an explicit calendarId (contrasting with 'default' calendar tools among siblings), but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The 31-day max range is a useful constraint but no filtering semantics or exclusions are described.

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