clio_list_calendars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic read action. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior, whether both firm and user calendars are returned, or any other side effects or limitations.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the core action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, the description gives the essential purpose, but it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned, how to use the calendar IDs) and pagination. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has to infer these details, which is a gap.

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 describes a single optional 'limit' parameter with clear constraints (default 50, min 1, max 50), so the schema is self-explanatory. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not mention this parameter at all, providing no added value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'calendars', and clarifies the scope as 'firm/user'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_calendar_entries, which deal with calendar entries rather than calendars.

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 phrase 'available to schedule on' implies this tool should be used before scheduling, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of what to do with the results (e.g., use calendar IDs for create_calendar_entry).

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