containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing surfaces read-only and primary flags, which is useful extra context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or freshness of the results.

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?

Two compact sentences: what is listed first, then the practical reason to call it. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both what the tool returns and why it is called. With no parameters and annotations already carrying the safety hints, little is missing; only result-shape quirks or refresh expectations are unaddressed.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists to add.

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 names the concrete resources returned — Google Calendar calendars and Google Tasks lists — with their fields (nom, id, principal, lecture seule), so the verb+resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-name siblings like 'tasks' or 'agenda', which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It states the operative context: use it to file things correctly at write time via the `container` / `list_name` fields. That tells an agent when this lookup matters, though it names no alternative tool or exclusion condition.

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