gws.cal.list_calendars

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

Annotations already convey the read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the scope ('all calendars'), but does not describe output format, pagination, or other side effects. Without annotations, this would be insufficient, but with annotations it 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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core function. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, 'List all calendars for the account' is a complete and self-sufficient description. It accurately sets expectations for what the tool returns without needing extra detail.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'account' with a helpful description. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action (list) and the resource (calendars), with a scope ('for the account'). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_events by naming 'calendars' as the target.

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 conveys its purpose but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or what prerequisites exist. It is implied that one would use this to enumerate calendars for an account, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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