list_calendars

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return structure (connectedCalendars list, destinationCalendar, isSelected flag) which adds value, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any side effects or authorization needs.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information about what is returned and how to interpret the data.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the two return fields, and how to use isSelected. It could mention handling of edge cases like no connected calendars, but overall it's sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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%. The description does not need to add parameter details. It already describes the output structure, which is more relevant than parameter semantics here.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'connected calendars and destination calendar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_selected_calendar, remove_selected_calendar, and set_destination_calendar by focusing on listing rather than mutation.

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 implies usage for viewing calendars and checking isSelected for conflict detection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With many calendar-related siblings, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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