audit_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'without changing COROS.' It adds value by enumerating what the audit checks (duplicate days, missing management IDs, planned-volume totals), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

A single, straightforward sentence that front-loads the action and lists the audit targets with a clear safety qualifier. There is no filler, and the structure is compact and easy to parse.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how to specify the date range. It does neither. While annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the lack of output format and parameter details leaves an agent guessing about the result, and sibling tools performing related audit functions intensify the need for more context.

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% and the description provides no specifics about startDate or endDate formats, units, or exact meaning beyond 'calendar range.' Both parameters are required strings with no additional documentation, leaving an agent unsure of the expected date format (e.g., ISO, epoch).

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 uses the verb 'Audit' with a specific resource (calendar range) and lists concrete audit targets (duplicate days, missing management IDs, planned-volume totals). This clearly distinguishes it from modification tools like swap_calendar_workouts or clear_calendar_range, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar check_calendar_conflicts tool.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as check_calendar_conflicts or summarize_planned_load. The phrase 'without changing COROS' implies a read-only audit context, but there is no statement of prerequisites, alternatives, or distinguishing scenarios.

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