meeting_prep_analyze_meeting_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions determining first meeting, relationship stage, and recommendations, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether it modifies data. The description suggests a read-only analysis, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentence that covers the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by breaking into use cases or behavior. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of recommendations). It provides a high-level overview but lacks details on what the analysis output contains. With 4 well-described parameters, it is partially complete but could be more thorough.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 that the tool analyzes relationship history and patterns for meeting attendees, determines if it's a first meeting, relationship stage, and provides recommendations. It distinguishes itself from sibling meeting_prep tools by focusing specifically on relationships, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The required parameters (processed_event and meeting_classification) imply it should be used after event processing and classification, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what alternative tools exist for similar purposes.

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