calendar_acl_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get' – a read operation – but does not mention authentication needs, error cases (e.g., rule not found), rate limits, or other side effects. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 straightforward get operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. It lacks details about the return value or potential errors, but the simplicity of the tool and common CRUD patterns make this acceptable. Slightly incomplete but not severely lacking.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (calendarId, ruleId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents 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?

The description 'Get a specific access control rule for a Google Calendar' clearly identifies the verb (get) and specific resource (access control rule). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_acl_list (list all) and calendar_acl_delete (delete) by emphasizing 'specific' and the resource name.

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 implies usage when retrieving a single ACL rule by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calendar_acl_list for listing, calendar_acl_update for modifying). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context of siblings suggests a straightforward CRUD role.

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