list_events

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List', implying a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context; a slightly longer description could improve structure without being 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?

Given no required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify default behavior (e.g., all events returned if no filters provided). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or the scope of events. Context is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (calendarId, startTime, endTime). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it achieves baseline adequacy but does not enhance understanding.

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 tool lists calendar events or appointments. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is identified. It distinguishes from siblings like create_event (creating) and list_calendars (listing calendars). However, it could be more precise about what is listed (e.g., all events by default).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_available_slots or search-oriented tools. No mention of when to apply filters or what the default behavior is. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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