캘린더 동기화 후보

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool writes nothing to the calendar and requires a duplicate check using fingerprint and title/time/URL. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already provided.

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 two concise sentences covering purpose, side-effect-free behavior, and the required duplicate-check step. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy.

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 explains what the tool does and its side effects, but it does not specify the structure or content of the returned calendar candidates. Since there is no output schema, an agent is left to infer the return format, which is a notable gap for a tool that produces a list.

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?

All three parameters (days, course_id, include_overdue) have descriptive schema text covering their meaning and defaults. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, but the schema coverage is complete, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 it normalizes LMS assignments/quizzes into calendar candidates and explicitly notes it writes nothing to the calendar. This distinguishes it from listing tools like get_upcoming_deadlines, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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 instruction to check for duplicates before use is a practical behavioral guideline, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over similar deadline-related siblings. The 'writes nothing' note hints at a preview use case but is not framed as a selection criterion.

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