大事日历-区间查询

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 accurately implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose output format, date format, behavior with empty defaults, or pagination. The week/month view note adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core operation and the interval semantics, followed by the use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the tool is simple (two optional string parameters, no output schema), the description leaves essential invocation details unspecified: the expected date format, how start/end defaults behave, and whether the range is inclusive. Given the large sibling family, a bit more context about when to choose this over calendar_month or calendar_upcoming would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explicitly framing the query as '[start, end] 区间内的事件', indicating that start and end define the interval boundaries. However, it does not specify the expected string format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), inclusivity, or default behavior, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询' / query), names the resource ('事件' / events), and defines the exact scope as the [start, end] interval. The added note '周/月视图用' (for week/month view) clearly distinguishes this from other calendar tools like calendar_upcoming or calendar_month.

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 gives a clear use context (week/month view) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It falls short of a 5 because it leaves the boundary with sibling calendar tools implicit.

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