meet_get_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and lists the types of data returned, but does not mention permissions, prerequisites, or any limitations. No annotation contradiction.

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?

One sentence with 11 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the main action and objects.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and an output schema, so the description's focus on what is returned (recordings, transcripts, transcript entries) is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks any statement about prerequisites or limitations, such as only being available for past conferences.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a conference record' which connects to the conference_record_name parameter, but does not explain how to obtain the name or any format constraints. Minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool gets recordings, transcripts, and transcript entries for a conference record, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling meet tools like meet_list_conference_records by specifying the artifact types.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve artifacts for a specific conference record but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives enough context that you need a conference_record_name, but no explicit guidance for tool selection.

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