show_calendar_agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing the side-effect boundary (silent, no speech, no character replacement). It does not say whether queuing replaces or stacks against content already on the display, nor whether the Pi must be online — meaningful gaps for a write-hinted display tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The middle sentence is a cross-reference rather than information, which slightly weakens an otherwise tight definition.

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 tool whose three parameters are entirely undocumented and which has no output schema, the description should resolve the date-range semantics and the display-replacement question. It covers the essential behavior (silent card, no speech) but leaves the parameters — the main source of invocation error — unresolved.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and "Same date range options as get_calendar_agenda" only defers to a sibling rather than explaining anything. Critically, the interplay between the `day` enum (today/tomorrow) and `start_date`/`end_date` strings is never addressed — which wins when both are supplied is left undefined.

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?

"Queue a silent calendar card on the Pi" gives a concrete verb (queue/show) and a concrete resource (calendar card) on a named surface. It is clearly distinguished from get_calendar_agenda (retrieval) by the word "queue" and from the speak/character tools by "silent." It does not, however, explicitly contrast with display_message/display_image, the closest sibling display tools.

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?

"Does not replace the character or trigger speech" functions as an explicit when-not, routing the agent away from speak/character_speak for silent display. The implicit alternative (get_calendar_agenda) is named only as a parameter reference, not as a use-case alternative, so the routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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