feishu_calendar_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions '以用户身份' (as user identity), it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that cover the tool's purpose and available actions. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the Chinese characters and action listing format could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 multi-action tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what each action returns, how pagination works with the list action, or the relationships between actions and parameters. The tool has significant complexity that isn't adequately addressed.

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 description mentions the three action types but doesn't explain what each action does with the parameters. With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions for page_size, page_token, and calendar_id.

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 this is a '飞书日历管理工具' (Feishu calendar management tool) with specific actions (list, get, primary), which provides a verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calendarListCalendars' or 'feishu_calendar_event', which handle similar calendar-related operations.

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 lists the three available actions but provides no guidance on when to use each action versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list' versus 'primary', or how this tool differs from other calendar-related tools in the sibling list like 'calendarListCalendars' or 'feishu_calendar_event'.

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