calendars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, yet the description adds real context: it requires EventKit (Calendar) access, which is an authorization prerequisite an agent needs. It also clarifies the semantic link between `id` and event folders, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by the routing hint and the access prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 (no params, output schema present), and the description covers purpose, return shape, the auth requirement, and the sibling to use for writing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does add value by defining what the returned `id` means (the folder events carry) rather than only echoing the schema. There are no input parameters to explain, so deeper parameter semantics do not apply.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List calendars as pointers'), and immediately clarifies the return shape (id + name). It further distinguishes the resource by explaining that the returned `id` is the `folder` that events carry, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool yields versus sibling event tools.

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 gives a concrete usage path: use a name to target writes, and 'See create_event to write,' routing the agent to the relevant sibling. It does not state explicit exclusions or when not to call it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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