calendarListCalendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists calendars visible to the current identity, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (despite page_size/page_token parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'visible' means in practice. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from scope details.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (listing resources with pagination), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, output format, and sufficient context for reliable tool invocation. It's minimally viable but with significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the 2 parameters (page_size, page_token), leaving their purpose, format, and usage completely undocumented. The description mentions calendar types but doesn't link them to parameters. Baseline would be 1 if not for the implicit context from the tool name and description scope.

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 verb ('列出' meaning 'list') and resource ('日历' meaning 'calendars'), specifying it lists calendars visible to the current identity. It distinguishes from siblings like calendarListEvents (lists events, not calendars), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other calendar-related tools like feishu_calendar_calendar. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions calendar types (primary/exchange/google/resource), which hints at scope, but doesn't provide when-not-to-use scenarios or name specific alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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