list_calendar_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no statement of what 'connected' implies, no default time range, result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior. For a listing tool with zero structured behavioral hints this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the verb/resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, yet it does not describe what an event record contains, the time window covered, ordering, or volume. For a list tool whose return shape is entirely undocumented, an agent cannot predict the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is accepted, though it does not explain how results are scoped in the absence of parameters.

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 verb and resource ('Lists events'), which is enough to distinguish it from the task/habit/project siblings. However it offers no differentiation from the closely named siblings list_calendar_accounts and list_calendar_subscriptions, and the phrase 'bound from connected calendars' is slightly ambiguous about what 'bound' means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_calendar_accounts or list_calendar_subscriptions, nor any statement of prerequisites or scope (e.g., a required setup step to connect calendars first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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