get_calendar_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination (though parameters hint at it), or what 'calendar/planning events' entails (e.g., format, time ranges). It's minimal and leaves key aspects unspecified.

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 very concise ('Get calendar/planning events'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to underspecification. Every sentence (here, just one) earns its place by stating the core action, but it could benefit from more detail.

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 siblings that might overlap, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic inference.

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 meaning beyond the schema, which has parameters 'limit' and 'offset' with no descriptions. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do (e.g., pagination controls), their units, or default values, failing to address the coverage 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 'Get calendar/planning events' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('calendar/planning events'), making the purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., which calendar, whose events) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_tasks' or 'get_absences', which might also involve scheduling. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_tasks' and 'get_absences' that might overlap in planning contexts, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.

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