calendar_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains the computed next_occurrence, defaulting to scheduled events, and how status widens visibility to cancelled/historical events. It does not describe full return fields or error behavior, but the key non-obvious behaviors are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds derived behavior, filtering options, and sibling usage in a logical progression. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all 6 parameters, explains default behavior, names the computed field, and ties usage to sibling tools. An agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly in most workflows.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds useful context around filters and the computed recurrence, but largely restates what the schema already documents for kind, status, channel, window, and limit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the caller's calendar events — tasks and posts') and adds ordering and scope. It clearly differentiates this tool from calendar_add, calendar_update, and calendar_remove by naming those siblings directly.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: before calendar_add to check for clashes and before calendar_update/calendar_remove to find an event's id. It also explains default behavior and how to expand or narrow results, leaving little ambiguity about selection.

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