개인 캘린더 목록 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. The description discloses cursor-based pagination but omits critical behaviors: whether the 'personal attributes' returned are read-only, what each page returns, whether results include the current user's calendar plus those shared with them, and whether this is a safe read operation. For a list endpoint with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 uses efficient Korean phrasing. It front-loads the purpose and includes the pagination mechanism. It's economical, though it could add a second sentence for behavioral/usage context 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 and no output schema, the description must provide completeness, but it falls short. The term 'personal attributes' (개인 속성) is ambiguous, the tool has 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and siblings like works_calendar_default_properties need differentiation. For a 3-parameter list tool with zero structured metadata support, this description is incomplete.

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 the three parameters (count, cursor, userId). It mentions 'cursor' concept generally but does not explain what userId controls (likely filtering to a specific user's calendars), how count interplays with pagination, or the meaning of the cursor parameter beyond vague 'cursor-based' mention. The description adds only marginal value over 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 the tool lists personal attributes of accessible calendars using cursor-based pagination. However, 'personal properties' is vague - it doesn't specify WHAT personal attributes are returned (e.g., sharing settings, ownership, color, notifications). It distinguishes from event-focused siblings (events_list) but not clearly from default_properties sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The title says 'personal calendar list' and mentions cursor-based pagination, which implies a listing use case, but there's no explicit statement of when to choose this over works_calendar_default_properties or why 'personals' differ from 'defaults'.

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