extract_action_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that meeting_id takes precedence, person filter only works with date range, and the return format. However, it does not mention whether the operation is safe (read-only) or if it has side effects.

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 well-structured with an initial purpose statement followed by usage guidance and a parameter list. It is concise but could be slightly more succinct by removing the redundant 'Args:' section and integrating parameter descriptions more naturally.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the return format ('Extracted action items with source meeting context'). All 5 parameters are documented in the description, and the tool's behavior is fully specified 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains precedence ('meeting_id takes precedence'), usage of date parameters (YYYY-MM-DD), the 'days' shortcut, and the constraint that person requires a date range.

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 verb 'Extract' and resource 'action items from meeting notes'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_meeting, get_transcript, and search_meetings by focusing on action item extraction.

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 explicitly states when to use ('when asked for action items, TODOs, or next steps') and explains the two modes by meeting_id or date range. It does not directly contrast with sibling tools but the purpose is clear.

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