List Calendar Resources/Rooms

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value by specifying the return format options ('markdown' or 'json') and error handling ('Error: ...' if the request fails). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them, though it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, all in a compact format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the output format and error handling, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., pagination or field examples).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters (limit, offset, response_format), including their types, ranges, defaults, and purposes. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 resource ('facility resources (rooms, equipment) in Planning Center Calendar'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pco_list_calendar_events' by focusing on resources rather than events, ensuring no confusion with similar list operations.

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 for retrieving resource lists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of 'facility resources' suggests it's for rooms/equipment, there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'pco_list_groups'), leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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