timepiece_list_calendars

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds detail on return content (IDs, names, timezones, working hours) and format options. This provides sufficient transparency without contradictions.

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 compact: a purpose sentence, a return content sentence, a usage hint, and a structured Args/Returns section. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description explains what is returned and how to use the output. There is no output schema provided, but the description's return specification is sufficient for an agent.

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 schema already describes the response_format parameter with its enum and default. The description mentions it but adds no new meaning. With schema coverage of 100% (the property has a description), a 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 first sentence clearly states the action: 'List all available Timepiece calendars.' The verb 'list' and resource 'calendars' are specific. The tool is distinct from sibling tools that deal with issues or other functions.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use calendar IDs when querying time-in-status data.' This suggests when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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