calendar_events_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful fact that alias credentials are required and mentions CalDAV, but it does not disclose the read-only nature, potential side effects, error behavior, or return format. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, using just two short sentences that front-load the action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancies or filler.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only states the basic action and credential requirement. It fails to mention what the response looks like, pagination behavior, default filters, or how to interpret the available filter parameters. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter having its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the credential context (already present in schema). It neither detracts from nor enhances the schema documentation.

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 action with a specific verb ("List"), a resource ("calendar events"), and scope ("for an alias (CalDAV)"). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_event_get (single event) or calendars_list (calendar metadata), even without naming alternatives.

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 minimal usage context, only noting "Requires alias credentials." It does not explain when this tool should be preferred over alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions or conditions. The prerequisite is helpful but does not constitute real usage guidance.

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