check_calendar_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which adds some behavioral clarity. However, it does not disclose the return format, possible error conditions, or whether this performs any network call that might have latency.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. The description is adequate for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it relative to sibling tools.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description that lists the allowed values ('google', 'office365', 'apple'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'calendar type connection', and the parameter 'calendar_type' clarifies scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_ics_feed' (different type of calendar source) and 'get_calendar_connect_url' (retrieves a URL rather than checking status).

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_calendar_connect_url' or 'check_ics_feed'. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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