kiosk_show_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'render' and 'dashboard,' implying a display operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is read-only, if it modifies state, what happens to existing displays, or any performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Render') and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (display rendering with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools. For a zero-param tool, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the source ('simple event data'), which isn't in the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant param info.

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 tool's purpose: 'Render a ready-made family calendar dashboard from simple event data.' It specifies the verb ('render'), resource ('family calendar dashboard'), and source ('simple event data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kiosk_show_chores' or 'kiosk_show_meal_plan' beyond the calendar focus.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'simple event data,' or when to choose this over other display tools like 'kiosk_show_scene.' Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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