Calendar events

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

Annotations clearly mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. The description adds value by revealing that the tool can produce two different data shapes (events vs. assignments) and that it aggregates all courses. This contextualizes the 'openWorldHint' annotation by showing the scope filtering per course.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose (list events between dates), and adds one valuable nuance about the type parameter. Every word contributes meaning; there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (all described in schema), no output schema, and moderate complexity (two event types, optional course filter). The description explains the key variant (assignment type) and default behavior (all courses). However, it does not mention the response format or pagination, which might be needed for completeness given no output schema, but this is a minor gap for a read-only list operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with types and descriptions. The description adds only minor semantics: clarifying that 'type=assignment' yields assignment due dates (while the schema enum just lists 'assignment') and that course_id limits to one course (vs. default all). This enriches the schema but is not extensive.

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 events between dates, specifying types like lectures, office hours, deadlines. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that 'type=assignment' shows assignment due dates, which is unique among the sibling tools (e.g., canvas_list_assignments likely lists assignments differently, not as calendar events).

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 implicitly suggests using 'type=assignment' for due dates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like canvas_list_assignments or canvas_list_todo. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., course enrollment, tool auth) and does not mention when not to use it.

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