ktalk_list_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses authorization-dependent visibility, 7-day chunking, the 100-item cap flag, and output format options. This goes well beyond a minimal tool description.

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 well-structured and front-loads the purpose, followed by a concise behavioral note and a clear args list. The FR/ADR references add traceability but little practical selection value; overall it remains appropriately sized.

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 description covers authorization scope, segmentation, cap behavior, and all parameters, and an output schema is present so return values need not be explained. The main gap is the unresolved required-versus-default discrepancy between the description and the schema.

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 description explains all four parameters, which is essential given 0% schema description coverage. However, it says start and end are 'required' while the schema marks them as nullable with defaults and lists zero required parameters, creating a mismatch that could confuse an agent.

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: list scheduled meetings visible to the active authorization. It also clarifies that results are not necessarily a personal calendar, which helps distinguish this tool from siblings like ktalk_list_archive or ktalk_get_room.

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 useful context about visibility scope and server-side segmentation, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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