calendar_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses authentication requirements (alias credentials) and protocol (CalDAV). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, the return format, or any side effects; the verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description could add more context.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple get tool, the description covers the essential purpose and authentication. However, it omits what the response contains (e.g., the calendar object details) and does not explicitly contrast with calendars_list. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal context beyond schema: it mentions alias credentials, which maps to alias_username and alias_password, but does not elaborate on calendar_id or parameter formats. The schema already describes the parameters adequately.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('specific calendar'), and the scope ('for an alias (CalDAV)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendars_list (list all) and calendar_create/update/delete (mutations).

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 implies when to use this tool (when retrieving a specific calendar) and notes the prerequisite of alias credentials. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like calendars_list for listing, but the phrase 'specific calendar' gives clear contextual guidance.

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