calendar_list_calendars

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is specified. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no modifications), return format, or potential limitations like pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that covers the essential action and scope. No filler words or redundant detail.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does: returns all accessible calendars. It could mention return fields (e.g., calendar IDs, names), but the complexity is low enough that the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and the schema already confirms no inputs are required.

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 ('List') and resource ('all calendars accessible by the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_create_event or calendar_query_events. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 conveys the context: it lists all calendars accessible to the currently authenticated user. This implies when to use it (e.g., to see available calendars before querying events), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context alone is clear enough for a basic listing tool.

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