خواندن صورتجلسه

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds content shape but nothing about behavior: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no indication of what happens with missing message_id, and no mention of the with_history effect beyond restating the schema field. For a read tool with annotations already declaring safety, this is under-explained.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The content list is front-loaded and the advanced-minutes note follows. Minor issue: the phrase 'For advanced minutes also the state...' is grammatically incomplete but still parseable.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description gives a reasonable sense of returned content, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It remains incomplete on when to choose this tool over message-oriented siblings and on the required media-type precondition.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including the message_id media types and the conversation_id source. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 what the minutes contain (subject, date, place, members, text, follow-up tasks, files), which tells the agent the resource is meeting minutes. However, it never states a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and it does not differentiate this from siblings such as mizito_get_message_info or mizito_get_messages. The purpose is inferable but not crisply defined.

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 on when to use this versus mizito_get_message_info, mizito_get_messages, or mizito_read_file. The description mentions normal vs advanced minutes but does not state when the caller would encounter either or what action to take.

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