agenda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (events sorted by start with their calendar), the overdue-reminder logic and its start-date dependency, the include_overdue escape hatch, and the exclusion of reminders with no due date. It stops short of declaring read-only/permission behavior or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the punchy 'What's on' lead, then parameter semantics, then return behavior. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the returns sentence is a run-on that could be split for readability.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers parameters, return contents, and edge-case behavior adequately. Missing only peripheral details like auth/rate-limit expectations, which are minor for a read-oriented agenda call.

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 0%, yet the description fully documents all three params: start format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and default (today), days semantics (1 = just that day, 7 = a week), and include_overdue behavior. Complete compensation for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific aggregation over two resources: events from ALL calendars plus due reminders in one call, which distinguishes it from the single-resource list_events and list_reminders siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative (e.g. week_summary, find_free_time), so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'What's on' framing implies the daily-agenda use case, and the parameter explanations imply usage, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus list_events, week_summary, or find_free_time, nor any when-not conditions.

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