calendar.entities.list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits' and details the return shape ('Returns {entities, count}'), going beyond a basic read-only hint. This is strong disclosure that the agent can rely on.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the read-only guarantee and return type. Every clause adds value, with no fluff. It is an exemplar of concise yet informative writing.

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 listing tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers safety, return format, and resource type. Sibling tools indicate a full ecosystem, but this tool's description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so both 'kind' and 'active_only' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details, but the schema fully covers them, meeting the baseline of 3. No extra compensation needed.

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 the tool lists tracked entities and includes dependency annotations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar.events.list. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracked entities'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates this is a read-only listing tool for entities, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where the alternative list tools should be used. However, the sibling list of calendar tools implies this is the go-to for entity listing, and 'Read-only' signals it's safe to call. No explicit when-not, but the context is adequate.

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