list_calendar_agents

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

Without annotations, the description should explicitly disclose read-only nature. While 'Lista' implies a read operation, it does not state that it has no side effects or requires specific permissions. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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 concise with two segments separated by an em dash. It is front-loaded and to the point. The inclusion of '[query]' is slightly unclear but does not detract significantly.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description outlines the return value (list of agents with roles) adequately. However, it lacks details on pagination, filtering, or scope (e.g., active/inactive agents), which are typical for a listing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear 'calendar_id' description. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameter; it only describes the output (agents with roles). Baseline score applies since schema is sufficient.

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 tool lists calendar agents assigned to a specific calendar, including their roles. This differentiates it from generic agent listing tools like 'list_agents', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'assign_calendar_agent'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to related tools like 'assign_calendar_agent' or 'list_agents'.

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