Find Calendar Conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description states the high-level functions but does not disclose whether the tool modifies calendar data, how it determines working hours, what timezone it uses, or what the output format is. While 'detect' implies read-only, this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence for the main function and a compact multilingual intent list. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, and every element serves a purpose—including the Chinese intents for multilingual support. No wasted words.

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 tool has a simple input schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the agent can expect in the return value. It does not describe the structure or format of the conflict/free-slot results, leaving some ambiguity. However, the core purpose is clear and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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% for the single 'days' parameter, which is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it stays at the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Detect overlapping events and list free working-hour slots.' It uses specific verbs and resource concepts (events, free slots) and distinguishes itself from sibling calendar tools like calendar_get_schedule or calendar_list_events by focusing on conflict detection and free slot discovery.

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 when to use the tool, especially via the Chinese intents (检查日程冲突, 查找空闲时间, 分析未来日程), which explicitly map to user queries for conflict checking and free time analysis. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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