Détail d'une réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, ensuring the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation that may return open-ended data. The description does not add further behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, nor does it contradict them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff. Structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple 1-param retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (metadata+transcription+synthesis) and a use case. It is almost complete, though explicitly stating the return format would push it to perfect completeness.

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 only parameter (meeting_id) is fully described in the input schema (UUID format, required). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: retrieve full meeting details including metadata, transcription, and synthesis. It also provides a concrete usage example (summarizing a specific meeting), distinguishing it from siblings like get_summary or get_transcript.

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 usage when the user wants to summarize a meeting, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. While the context makes it somewhat clear, explicit guidance would improve this dimension.

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