Meeting Chief Lite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying it returns 'matching chunks with source citations' and describes the three search modes. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 perfectly sized at two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality with three search modes, and the second sentence specifies the return format. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 3 search modes) and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but doesn't address error handling, performance characteristics, or detailed output structure. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three search modes (which are already in the enum) and the 'context_chunks' parameter's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('meeting transcripts'), specifies three distinct search modes (semantic, keyword, context), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'meetings' and 'status' by focusing on transcript search functionality rather than meeting management or system status.

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 provides clear context about when to use different search modes (semantic for AI similarity, keyword for exact match, context for surrounding transcript), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive about exclusions.

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