timps_meeting_condenser

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states the output format (structured summary with owners/deadlines) and that it returns data, but does not disclose behavior for messy/empty transcripts or how it handles missing owner information. It is transparent about the core operation but lacks edge-case detail.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and wastes no words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the input (meeting transcript) and the structured output (action items, decisions, open questions with owners/deadlines). It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (transcript, attendees) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and names the resource ('meeting transcript') plus the exact outputs ('action items, decisions, and open questions'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by its unique function of condensing meetings into structured summaries.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a meeting transcript and need action items, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. It lacks statements like 'Use this instead of X when...'.

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