enrich_meeting_with_crossrefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool extracts topics, matches against tasks/papers/projects, returns a brief, and writes to the meeting's notes field. This provides good insight into its behavior.

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 relatively concise at about 6 sentences, front-loading the key purpose. The Args and Returns sections are slightly redundant given the schema but still useful. Overall efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (multi-step enrichment), the description covers prerequisites, what it does, the return value, and side effects. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. It is complete.

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 single parameter meeting_id is described as 'The meeting_id from the meetings table'. This adds minimal context beyond the schema's title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value but not much.

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 it finds cross-references for a saved meeting, listing open tasks, related papers, and active projects. It specifies it extracts key topics from the transcript and matches them. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_library or get_tasks.

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 says 'Call this after saving a meeting transcript (via Meetings tab or transcribe_recording())'. It provides clear context on when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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