list_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description notes the tool aggregates across 'all authorized accounts' and returns a list 'grouped by account' - this is useful behavioral context about output structure. However, it doesn't disclose information about rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no calendars exist. With zero annotations, a bit more behavioral disclosure would strengthen this.

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: one stating the action and one describing the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with zero filler or redundancy. Ideal length for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and the description explains the output grouping. For a simple list-all tool with no inputs, the description covers what's needed: what it does and what it returns. The output schema presumably handles return structure details, so the description is sufficient.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully covered). The description adds meaning about what the output represents (calendars grouped by account), which is beyond what the empty schema provides. For a zero-parameter tool, baseline is 4.

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 and resource: 'List all calendars from all authorized accounts.' It specifies scope ('all', 'from all authorized accounts') but doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings. However, sibling names like list_accounts and list_organizations are clearly different resources, so differentiation is implied through the resource name itself.

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 states the tool lists all calendars across all authorized accounts, which implies broad scope. It doesn't provide when-to-use vs alternative guidance or exclusions, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool this is mostly adequate. No mention of when to use it over say list_accounts or get_event_details.

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