List Calendar Events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (paginated JSON array of Schedule (Legacy) records) and detailing pagination control (page/per_page) and metadata. The deprecation notice is an important behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 slightly longer at five sentences, but each sentence adds value: deprecation warning, purpose, usage, pagination, required param, and API endpoint. The structure is logical, starting with the most critical information (deprecation) and progressing to details. Could be slightly more compact but effective.

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?

Considering the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, deprecation, pagination, required parameters, and return type. It does not cover authentication or error handling, but these are likely common across tools. The endpoint path is provided for reference. Completeness is good.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description redundantly mentions project_id as required and pagination parameters, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter formats, default values, or edge cases, which are covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Calendar Events for a specified project'). It further clarifies the scope by noting it enumerates 'Schedule (Legacy) records'. The deprecation warning and reference to alternative tools help distinguish this tool from others, providing clear purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') and explicitly names alternatives ('Schedule Tasks, Calendar Items, and Schedule endpoints') due to deprecation. This gives clear when/when-not context.

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