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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels (destructive) and requires event UUID, but omits details on reversibility, notifications, side effects, or error conditions. Minimal but adequate for a basic action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema and the action's simplicity, the description is adequate but lacks information on return values (success/error) and whether cancellation triggers any automated actions. It meets minimum viability for a straightforward cancellation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by clarifying that the UUID must be the event's (not invitee's), which is not explicit in the schema description. This distinction enhances correct usage.

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 it cancels a scheduled event and specifies the required parameter (event UUID), differentiating it from similar tools that might use invitee UUID. However, it does not explicitly label the action as destructive or irreversible.

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 provides a key requirement (use event UUID not invitee UUID) which helps avoid misuse, but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., after scheduling). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary language.

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

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 implies a read-only operation by saying 'returns details,' but does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or error behavior. The listed fields are useful but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value; no wasted content.

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?

For a single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the main return fields. Could be improved by mentioning possible error states, but overall meets the need.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter (event_uuid) described clearly. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it is adequate but not enhanced.

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 returns complete details of a scheduled event, listing specific fields (time, status, Zoom link, guest data). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like calendly_cancel or calendly_schedule.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it is for retrieving event details, but there is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., needing the event UUID from a previous search).

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

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the behavior of a 7-day maximum and UTC output, but this information partially duplicates the schema. It omits whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, or result structure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

While it covers the core functionality and a key constraint, it lacks details about output format (e.g., list of start times or intervals) and error behavior. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the tool description adds no new parameter-level insights. It only reiterates the 7-day limit already present in the end_date schema description.

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 it lists available slots for a given event type in a date range, with a maximum 7-day window and UTC return. It is distinct from sibling tools like calendly_schedule, which creates events, and calendly_get_event, which retrieves a specific event.

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 when checking availability, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns URI, slug, duration, and public booking URL for active event types. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but for a simple list with no parameters, it is reasonably transparent. The behavior is clear: a read-only retrieval without side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Lista', and conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is listed and which fields are returned. No additional output schema exists, but the description suffices. The sibling tools are related but distinct, and the description does not need to cover all edge cases for this straightforward list.

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?

Tool has no parameters (0 params) and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline per rules is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the returned fields (URI, slug, duration, public booking URL) that the schema alone does not provide, though no parameters exist to document.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists active event types with specific attributes (URI, slug, duration, public booking URL). It uses a specific verb 'Lista' and resource 'tipos de evento', and gives examples (diagnóstico, apresentação). This differentiates it from sibling tools like calendly_get_event (single event) and calendly_list_available_slots (slots, not types).

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?

Usage context is implied: use when needing a list of active event types and their details. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings (e.g., when to use calendly_get_event instead). The description lacks statements of preconditions or exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: fallback to a pre-filled URL on failure. However, it does not explain the success response, side effects, permission requirements, or potential errors. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a critical fallback condition. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the main action and fallback, but missing details about the success return value, error responses, and confirmation behavior. For a tool with no output schema, this information is important for the agent to handle the result correctly.

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 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. It adds no new information beyond the schema, but the schema already suffices. Baseline 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 clearly states it schedules a meeting via the Scheduling API and mentions a fallback behavior (returning a pre-filled URL on failure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendly_cancel or calendly_list_available_slots, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (scheduling) but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or alternative tools is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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