extract_calendar_event

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says that information is extracted and .ics is produced; it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies or marks the email, how errors or missing email content are handled, or whether the .ics is returned or stored. This ambiguity is risky for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the operation and output format. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields; every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it specifies the .ics output but leaves the return/transport form unclear and does not state the logical precondition that either uid or subject/bodyText should be supplied. It is adequate for a simple extraction tool but has clear gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds the general extraction target (date, time, link, participants) but does not add meaningful mapping to uid/folder/subject/bodyText beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation ('çıkarır' – extracts) on a clear resource (meeting/appointment/event info in an email) and specifies the concrete output format (standard .ics/iCalendar). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling read/analysis tools like read_email or analyze_email, none of which claim .ics generation.

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 guidance is given about when to select this tool over siblings such as analyze_email or search_emails, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The schema hints at input modes, but the description itself never states the conditions under which extract_calendar_event should be used.

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