nworks_calendar_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It successfully documents the OAuth authentication requirement ('User OAuth 인증 필요') with specific scope ('calendar.read'), and reveals the dependency workflow (must use nworks_login_user first if not logged in).

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 sentences structured perfectly: purpose statement first, usage examples second, and authentication/prerequisites third. No redundant information; every sentence adds distinct value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Comprehensive for a list operation with no output schema: it covers purpose, usage patterns, authentication scope, and fallback tool requirements. Minor gap in not describing pagination behavior or empty result handling, but complete given the available structured metadata.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Korean labels and ISO datetime format examples (YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss+09:00). Since the schema fully documents the semantics of fromDateTime, untilDateTime, and userId, the description does not need to repeat this information, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specific verb '조회합니다' (queries/retrieves) with the resource '캘린더 일정/스케줄' (calendar schedules). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nworks_calendar_create, nworks_calendar_update, and nworks_calendar_delete by explicitly stating this is a read-only list operation.

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 explicit example scenarios ('오늘 일정 알려줘', '이번 주 스케줄 확인') for when to use the tool. Critically, it documents the prerequisite condition '미로그인 시 nworks_login_user로 로그인 필요', explicitly naming the alternative tool required when authentication is missing.

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