blackboard_calendar

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the 28-day range cap, the ISO date requirement for events, and the default-to-do-window behavior when no date arguments are supplied.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct and necessary fact, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded with the output categories and then states constraints. A leading verb would improve clarity, but the current size is well suited to the tool's complexity.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and only five optional parameters, the description covers the most non-obvious invocation details: conditional date requirements, date range limits, and default behavior. The main remaining gap is not explicitly stating how the view enum values correspond to the listed output categories, but this is largely inferable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain important semantics for since and until (ISO format, 28-day maximum range, default behavior when absent), but it leaves view mapping, limit, and offset semantics implicit rather than directly explained.

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 enumerates the resource types (deadlines, events, calendar definitions, or activity) and those align with the view enum, so an agent can infer this is a read/query tool for Blackboard calendar data. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from sibling calendar-like tools, but the resource scope is reasonably clear.

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 provides concrete invocation guidance: events require ISO since/until, the date range must be 28 days or less, and omitting dates triggers Blackboard's default to-do window. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as blackboard_dashboard, connects_events, or careers_calendar.

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