HaMitaperim · Tel Aviv tech meetups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that a complete detail record is returned (versus partial list entries), but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid ids or whether the response is bounded in size.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, the keying parameter, and the id provenance all in the first clause. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, what it needs, and where the id comes from. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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%, so the description must carry the single parameter's meaning. It does add provenance ("ids come from the list and search tools"), which is real value beyond the bare string type, but it omits format constraints such as the 1-200 character bounds or expected id shape.

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?

"Full details of one meetup by id" states a specific retrieval action and resource, and "full details" implicitly contrasts with the summary results returned by the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to avoid, but the detail-vs-list distinction is inferable.

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 parenthetical "ids come from the list and search tools" establishes the prerequisite workflow (discover an id first, then fetch details), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over search_meetups or what happens if you already have full data, so usage is only implied.

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

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

The readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description only needs incremental context. It does add that the catalog reflects sources scanned daily, but says nothing about result ordering, volume, or whether the returned 'kind' labels are the canonical values used by other tools.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource definition comes first and the filtering capability second. The only structural weakness is that the opening is a fragment without a verb, so the action has to be inferred from the title.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to say what a result row contains (name, kind, URL?). That matters because 'kind' is described as 'exact kind label as returned in results' – the shape of those results is never characterized.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the exact-kind requirement and the example labels. The description only restates that 'q' matches name or topic and 'kind' is a filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema – baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly what a 'source' is (public calendars, Meetup groups, Luma pages, conferences, venues, company event pages) and says the bot scans them daily, which clearly separates this catalog-listing tool from the meetup-event siblings. It falls short of a 5 only because the verb is implicit – the text is a noun phrase relying on the title 'List sources' to convey that it returns a list.

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?

Filtering guidance is stated ('filter by kind or free text (name or topic)'), which implies the tool is for browsing/discovering the source catalog. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_meetup, search_meetups, or list_topics, and no hint that this is the place to obtain valid 'kind' labels before calling the meetup tools – a natural and valuable routing cue that is omitted.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: the return contains tags paired with upcoming-meetup counts, and the counts are scoped to 'upcoming' rather than all-time. There's no output schema, so this return-shape signal is doing real work.

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?

Two short sentences, with the resource and return content front-loaded before the follow-up routing hint. No filler, no restatement of the title, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, an agent needs to know what comes back and what to do next, and the description covers both. The only gap is that it doesn't say whether the list is exhaustive or how large it may be, which is minor given the closed-world annotation. Complexity is low, so the two sentences are nearly sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input layer; baseline 4 applies. The mention of a 'tag id' refers to a parameter of the sibling search_meetups, not this tool, and is correctly framed as a hand-off rather than an input here.

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 the resource (topic tags) and states what each entry carries (a count of upcoming meetups), which is more specific than the bare name 'list_topics'. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'enumerate', but the noun phrase plus the tool name makes the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from search_meetups by indicating tags feed into that 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?

The sentence 'Pass a tag id to search_meetups' gives a concrete downstream use and implicitly frames this as a discovery step before searching. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_sources or list_upcoming_meetups, nor when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('soonest first') and the in-person/Tel Aviv scoping, which are real behavioral facts not in the schema, but says nothing about result volume behavior, pagination, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: scope and ordering first, then the one usage hint that earns its place. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

All three parameters are optional with full schema documentation and there is no output schema to explain, so the description only needs to establish scope, ordering, and intent. It does that adequately; the absence of any guidance on result limits or empty results is a minor gap for a simple read-only list tool.

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% and each parameter carries its own description, including the Asia/Jerusalem timezone and the week definition, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the week enum in colloquial terms; it adds no meaning for limit or exclude_paid.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource plus scope qualifiers: 'Upcoming in-person tech meetups in Tel Aviv, soonest first.' The geographic, in-person, and ordering constraints let an agent distinguish this from a general search, though it never names search_meetups or list_sources as the alternative for broader queries.

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 only guidance is 'Use when=week for "what's on this week",' which maps a natural-language intent to an enum value rather than explaining when to choose this tool over search_meetups. Usage is implied by the 'upcoming' framing but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are restricted to upcoming events only, and free-text matching is conjunctive ("every word must match") across title, topic, organizer and venue in Hebrew or English. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the filter surface, with no filler. The inline tag glossary is longer than ideal but earns its space because the enum values are opaque English keys mapping to Hebrew labels.

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 seven-parameter, all-optional read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers scope, matching semantics and tags adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on return shape or sort order, which no output schema supplies.

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 baseline is 3; the description does add real meaning by naming the fields the free-text query spans and its all-words-must-match rule, plus the English-to-Hebrew tag mapping that the enum alone does not convey. It adds nothing further about date_from/date_to interaction with when, or about limit behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search upcoming meetups") and enumerates the combinable filter dimensions, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling list_upcoming_meetups or get_meetup, leaving the agent to infer which entry point to use.

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?

"Combine any of" gives useful composition guidance for building a query, and the tool is implicitly the general discovery path. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_upcoming_meetups or when-not guidance, and no statement that all parameters are optional and a bare call returns all upcoming meetups.

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