Transcription d'une réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral disclosures beyond the format of the transcription. While consistent, it does not provide additional context like authorization needs or termination conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence followed by a format example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every element adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does, how output is formatted, and how it differs from a sibling. The information is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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% with one parameter 'meeting_id' described as 'UUID de la réunion' in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves the text transcription of a meeting, distinguishes it from get_meeting by noting it's lighter, and specifies the output format. The verb 'récupère' and resource 'transcription texte d'une réunion' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context by comparing to get_meeting (lighter), implying when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exclusions. It gives good guidance but lacks explicit boundaries.

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