emacs_org_agenda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It conveys only that the operation is a query and does not describe outputs, side effects, or the impact of span and filter. This is a clear gap for a tool that must be invoked autonomously.

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 text is very short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is closer to under-specification than to efficient completeness: one phrase carries almost no operational detail.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what an 'org-agenda items' query returns, how results are presented, or how span and filter shape the result. Two fully documented parameters and a simple name do not fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 100% and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents span choices and filter syntax. Baseline 3 applies because the description need not repeat what structured fields already say.

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, 'Query', and a specific resource, 'org-agenda items', so an agent can identify this as a read-oriented agenda tool rather than an org file read/write tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from emacs_org_search, but the resource phrase narrows scope enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling alternatives such as emacs_org_search or emacs_org_todo_list. The agent must infer usage from the generic 'Query' wording and the schema.

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