get-today-calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations do not: the data source is a linked Google Calendar and the window is fixed at yesterday/today/tomorrow, which tells the agent it cannot query arbitrary ranges.

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?

Two short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no padding. The trailing 'Recognizes event name / start date and time / end date and time' is awkwardly phrased and reads like a clipped field list rather than a clear statement of returned attributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the burden of describing the return shape, and it only gesture at it via the vague 'Recognizes event name / start date and time / end date and time'. It also omits whether multiple linked calendars are merged and how timezone is handled, which matters given the presence of get-japan-current-time.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. Notably, the description does explain that the date window is fixed rather than selectable, which compensates for the empty 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 names a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (scheduled events from the linked Google Calendar) and makes the fixed scope explicit as yesterday/today/tomorrow. It is clearly differentiable from task-oriented siblings like get-tasks-list, though it does not name a calendar-specific alternative such as get-calendar-date-memo.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over get-calendar-date-memo or the other calendar/task siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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