list_scheduled_events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little beyond imply a read. It does not state that the call is non-mutating or read-only, does not mention pagination or result limits, does not describe required bot permissions or intents for viewing scheduled events, and does not say what happens if no events exist. 'Scheduled and active' is the one real scope detail, which is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'scheduled and active' could be tightened and carries mild ambiguity about whether other event states exist.

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 simple list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the minimum. It still leaves the agent guessing about returned fields, ordering, pagination behavior, and permissions, which matters given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 single parameter (guildId) has 100% schema description coverage including the DISCORD_GUILD_ID default, and the description adds nothing about it. Per the calibration rule, a fully documented schema sets the baseline at 3.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scheduled and active events on the server'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools create_scheduled_event, edit_scheduled_event, delete_scheduled_event, or get_scheduled_event_users, so an agent gets no help telling this read tool apart from its near neighbors.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no pointer to get_scheduled_event_users for attendee details. An agent must infer usage entirely from the verb 'List'.

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