calmesh_list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the required auth scope and the content of the output (provider, status, last sync time), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only (though likely obvious from 'List'), nor does it discuss pagination, rate limits, or errors, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and user scope; the second adds return details and an auth requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential points: what it lists, for whom, what it shows, and a prerequisite. It could optionally mention pagination or ordering, but given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param information, which is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'calendar connections', clearly identifying the operation. It also specifies the return fields (provider, status, last sync time) and the user scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_connection_status or start_oauth_connection.

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 makes clear that this tool is for listing all calendar connections for the authenticated user, and it mentions a prerequisite ('Requires full scope'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use it.

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