Get Calendars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uses the read-oriented verb 'Retrieve' to imply a non-destructive operation and details the return contents (IDs, names, user IDs). The domain note 'Each user typically has their own calendar' adds behavioral context. It doesn't explicitly state permissions or side-effect-free behavior, but for a simple list operation, this is adequate.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary action, then provides usage context, return details, and a domain note. No wasted words or 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned, why to use it, and a relevant domain fact. It doesn't mention pagination or errors, but these are unlikely to be significant for a simple list-all operation. Minor gaps exist, but overall it's effective.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does mention 'CalendarId' as a related concept, which adds slight semantic context beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Retrieve all calendars in this LACRM account,' clearly stating the action and resource. It also specifies what is returned (calendar IDs, names, associated user IDs), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_users or get_teams.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'to discover calendar IDs when creating events,' providing a clear use case. It also adds 'Use CalendarId when creating calendar events' to reinforce when the returned IDs are needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough within the context of siblings like create_event.

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