calendar_entities_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth requirement, and no rate limits, plus the return shape. It omits ordering, pagination, and what qualifies as a 'tracked' entity, but the safety/operational profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Three tightly packed clauses with zero filler: the safety profile leads, the operation follows, and the return contract closes. Everything earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape (`{entities, count}`) and the read-only guarantees, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around ordering and pagination, which matter less for a small list endpoint.

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 the schema already documents 'kind' and 'active_only' fully; the description adds no syntax, default, or semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 ('List tracked entities') and adds a distinguishing detail: each entity is annotated with outgoing and incoming dependency links. That separates it from the sibling entity mutation tools (add/update/delete/link), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with calendar_events_list, which is the closest confusable list tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List tracked entities' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer it is the read counterpart to calendar_entities_add/update/delete, but nothing in the text routes it against calendar_events_list or the other *_list tools.

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