calendars_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the auth requirement ('Requires alias credentials') and protocol (CalDAV), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe pagination behavior, though 'list' implies read-only. Some context is provided but not exhaustive.

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, short sentence that front-loads the purpose and then states the prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with minimal parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists and the required credentials. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete, though it could optionally mention pagination or response format in text.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with all parameters (page, limit, alias_username, alias_password) described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'List calendars for an alias (CalDAV)'. It uses a specific verb 'list', a resource 'calendars', and a scope 'for an alias', making it distinct from sibling calendar tools like calendar_get or calendar_events_list.

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 usage by specifying that it lists calendars for an alias and explicitly requires alias credentials. This gives the agent a prerequisite and clear context, though it does not mention alternatives (likely unnecessary as this is the only calendar-list tool among siblings).

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