calendar_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return basic information', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or what constitutes 'basic information'. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 sentence, making it very concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability. It earns its place by being brief but could be more organized.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. However, with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'basic information' entails or how the parameter affects the result, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'calendar'. The agent gets no help understanding what the parameter does, its format, or how to use it. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Return' and the resource 'basic information about the configured Supershift export calendar'. It is specific and distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools that deal with shift creation or data manipulation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many sibling tools related to Supershift, there is no mention of when to query calendar status versus other operations.

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