nworks_calendar_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds important behavioral details: it requires user OAuth authentication with a specific scope and instructs to use nworks_login_user if not logged in. This informs the agent of prerequisites and potential side effects (none expected, but auth needed).

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, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose, provide usage examples, and mention authentication. It is well-structured with the core function first, followed by context. No redundant information or filler.

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?

While the tool is straightforward and parameters are well-documented, the description does not mention the expected return value or structure (e.g., a list of events, fields included). Since there is no output schema provided, this gap mildly reduces completeness. The authentication guidance is present, but response format is unspecified.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (userId, fromDateTime, untilDateTime) with formats and examples, covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 that the tool retrieves the user's calendar schedule/events, and provides concrete example requests ('오늘 일정 알려줘', '이번 주 스케줄 확인'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from calendar creation, update, or deletion siblings.

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 gives explicit example use cases for listing schedules and notes the authentication requirement (OAuth, calendar.read scope) with a pointer to the login tool if not authenticated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create/update/delete tools, though the verb '조회' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation.

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