meetings_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists meetings with filtering, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like pagination (suggested by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no meetings match. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List all meetings with optional filtering'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or constraints, but it earns a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how filtering works with the undocumented parameters. For a list tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this inadequate for the given context.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what parameters like 'after', 'createdAfter', 'createdBefore', 'properties', or 'limit' do or how they relate to filtering. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'List all meetings with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('meetings'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'meetings' entails (e.g., upcoming, past, all) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'meetings_search' or 'meetings_get', which could have overlapping functionality. This meets the minimum viable standard but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meetings_search' or 'meetings_get' from the sibling list. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't clarify what types of filtering are supported or when filtering might be preferred over other tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context, scoring low due to the absence of comparative guidance.

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