List imported calendars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: listing .ics files that lack a calendar row, and printing export steps when no calendars exist. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The disclosure is partial but useful.

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 two concise sentences. It leads with the core purpose, then efficiently lists the output fields and special cases. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler text. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the fields returned, the handling of orphaned .ics files, and the fallback when no calendars exist. It does not describe the exact output format (e.g., JSON vs. text) but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to complement. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't—it focuses on the output. There is nothing missing regarding 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'imported calendars', then enumerates the exact fields returned (name, event-definition count, size, source, import time, free-tier slot usage). It also mentions handling of .ics files without calendar rows and the export-steps fallback, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like events_list or free_busy.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to another tool. The only contextual hint is the edge case 'With none it prints the export steps', but there is no direct comparison to siblings or when-not-to-use.

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