meeting_attendance_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines what 'current round' means (highest round_number with a message), notes the counterintuitive edge case that a new round only exists after its first message, states that spoken/pending are matched by agent_name, and explains the non-obvious timeout_in_seconds semantics including that it is never reset per round and is 0 for debate-originated meetings.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage, then semantics, with no filler sentences. It is slightly longer than needed because the timeout_in_seconds paragraph describes output-field behavior rather than the call itself, but every line still carries real 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the key interpretive traps (round detection, name matching, timeout semantics). It does not say what an empty spoken list implies or how failures are surfaced, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about meeting_id itself, and the extended timeout_in_seconds discussion concerns a value that is not an input parameter here, which risks briefly confusing an agent about what this tool accepts.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (check) and resource (expected participants' spoken status in the current round), which distinguishes it from the adjacent meeting_read_messages and meeting_status-style siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly names the trigger (after spawning all Agents via dispatch_plan) and the downstream decision it gates (advancing to the next round or concluding the meeting). It also names a sibling tool (dispatch_plan) as the predecessor, giving a clear sequencing rule rather than a generic hint.

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