boj_comms_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions operations but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by 'authenticate' operation but not explained), rate limits, error handling, or what 'check availability' entails. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic operation names.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose in a single sentence. It efficiently lists key operations without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping or explaining operations, but it's appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 (multiple operations, authentication, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication flow, operation-specific behaviors, return values, and error cases. For a multi-operation tool with significant behavioral implications, this description is insufficient to guide an agent effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it hints at operations but doesn't provide additional semantics like parameter usage details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 as 'Google Calendar operations' with specific verbs (list, create, check) and resources (events, availability). It distinguishes this as a calendar tool among siblings that are mostly browser, GitHub, GitLab, and other operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from boj_comms_gmail which is another communications tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but doesn't indicate prerequisites (like authentication), when to choose specific operations, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like boj_comms_gmail. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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