Get Open Action Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: what fields are returned (task, owner, meeting context, age-open) and the criterion that makes an item 'open'. It does not say whether results span all meetings indefinitely, whether there is a time window or pagination limit, or what distinguishes an empty result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return contents and the definition of 'open'. Every sentence adds information; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the zero-parameter read-only nature keeps the surface small. The description covers scope and content adequately, though it omits the time window over which 'past meetings' are scanned and the ordering of results.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open action items from past meetings'), and defines what 'open' means, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling overlaps this function, so the purpose is still 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?

Usage is implied — call this to surface outstanding tasks from prior meetings — and the definition of 'open' (follow-up not marked done) is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like search_meeting_history or debrief_meeting.

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