calendar_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a read/return path, it performs no external API calls, it draws no figures, and neo/fireball results are gated on prior accumulation by other tools. It omits the shape/ordering of returned event records and any pagination or result-size behavior.

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 one-line purpose statement is front-loaded and every parameter line adds information rather than repeating the schema. The 'Args:' block prose is slightly verbose but no sentence is wasted.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the input side is fully covered, but nothing describes what an event record actually contains, which is a genuine gap when no output schema exists. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 0%, so the description has to do all the work and it does: each of the four parameters is documented with defaults (current year/month at base place, Tokyo) plus meaning — place is explicitly for timezone resolution. The kinds parameter is given its full allowed vocabulary (user/launch/sky/neo/fireball/public/holiday, 'all') and comma-separated syntax, compensating for the missing enum in 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 states a specific verb and resource ('蓄積済みのイベント一覧を返す') and characterizes the operation as the lightweight path that neither renders charts nor calls external APIs, which implicitly distinguishes it from heavier siblings such as space_calendar. It never names the alternative tool, so orientation for the agent relies on inference from that parenthetical.

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 gives a clear selection cue (use this when you want stored data without figure rendering or external API calls) and an important prerequisite: neo/fireball kinds only return records already accumulated by neo_close_approach or fireball_reports. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use space_calendar instead when you need computed/chart output', so the comparison is implied rather than stated.

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