Calendar Ical Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, requires no authentication (if applicable), or what the output format exactly entails beyond being an iCal export. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 with no filler words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the tool is read-only, but that is more of a behavioral transparency issue than a completeness issue. Overall, the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The rules set a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the specific resource ('raw Grocy iCal export'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calendar_summary_tool (summary) and calendar_sharing_link_tool (link) by emphasizing 'raw' and 'export', which tells an agent this provides the actual iCal data.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used when raw iCal data is needed, nor does it explain the difference between this and calendar_summary_tool or calendar_sharing_link_tool. An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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