Calendar Summary Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states read-only, but does not specify whether the summary includes detailed items or just aggregates, whether it respects date ranges, or what happens with null dates. The lack of depth for a cross-domain summary tool 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key behavior (read-only planning summary) and scope. No fluff, but could benefit from a terse note on usage or parameters, though this is not required for 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?

Given the tool aggregates multiple domains (tasks, chores, batteries, meal plan) and has no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output structure despite having an output schema, but it also fails to clarify key behaviors like date handling, summary granularity, and how it relates to domain-specific list tools. An agent would struggle to know what to expect.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, with start_date and end_date lacking any description of format or meaning. The description implies date-range filtering but does not specify date format, inclusive/exclusive bounds, or default behavior. This leaves the agent to guess, but since the parameters are optional and the schema is simple, it is minimally adequate.

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 clear purpose: returning a read-only planning summary across tasks, chores, batteries, and meal plan. However, it lacks specificity about what the summary contains (e.g., counts, dates, statuses) and does not differentiate from similar tools like meal_plan_summary_tool or tasks_list_tool, making it partially ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_list_tool, chores_list_tool, or meal_plan_summary_tool. It mentions 'planning summary' but does not clarify whether this aggregates data from those tools or how it differs, leaving the agent to infer its usage.

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