blackboard_calendar

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond that—event queries need ISO dates, a 28-day max range, and a default window when no dates are supplied—but it doesn't describe return format or pagination, so 3 is appropriate.

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 terse sentences carry three distinct pieces of information: resource types, date constraints, and default behavior. No filler; constraints are placed before the fallback behavior.

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 query tool with an output schema and thorough annotations, the description covers the key operational details: what views return, required date format, maximum range, and default window. Gaps are the missing explicit verb and no guidance on pagination or when to prefer a sibling tool, but these are minor given schema and annotations.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic mapping of view values to 'deadlines/events/calendar definitions/activity' and gives crucial formatting and range constraints for since/until (ISO, <=28 days) plus default behavior. It doesn't mention limit/offset, but those are numeric and have clear bounds in the schema.

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 names the resource areas ('Deadlines, events, calendar definitions, or activity') and the tool name indicates a calendar, so the domain is clear. However, it never states an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not contrast with sibling calendar-related tools, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

Provides concrete conditions: events require ISO since/until, the range must be <=28 days, and omitting dates falls back to Blackboard's default to-do window. This is clear context for when certain arguments should be used, though it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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