cal_list_events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (list of dicts with keys) and input constraints (RFC 3339 datetimes, rejection of bare dates), which are 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then explains each parameter in a structured manner. No redundant sentences; every sentence provides essential information efficiently.

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 moderate complexity of the tool (3 required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (return format explained in description), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, valid values, and output structure.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by detailing acceptable values for 'calendar' (user, hermes, full ID) and exact format for 'start' and 'end' (RFC 3339 with timezone offset, rejecting bare dates). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists events in a calendar within a time range, sorted chronologically. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like cal_create_event or cal_delete_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 provides clear context for using the tool (time range, accepted calendar IDs, required datetime format) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is clear from the name and context.

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