list_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like 'newest first' sorting, inclusive date boundaries, and case-insensitive substring matching for the app filter. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, what happens when filters are omitted, or any permissions needed, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 short paragraphs. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second paragraph details parameter behavior. There is no redundant information or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding how the tool works.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the core behavior (listing recorded meetings with optional date and app filters, sorted newest first). The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the limit parameter's behavior, but the schema provides a default, making the tool usable without further detail.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for three of the four parameters: from_date/to_date are described as inclusive ISO dates, and app is described as a case-insensitive substring. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely to the schema, but its meaning is obvious from its name and default value, so the description covers most parameter semantics effectively.

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 starts with 'List recorded meetings, newest first,' which clearly states the action (list) and resource (recorded meetings). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_meeting (which retrieves a specific meeting) and get_transcript (which retrieves a transcript) by focusing on the list operation.

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 explains the filtering semantics (from_date/to_date inclusive, app as case-insensitive substring) and implies usage for listing meetings with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_transcripts) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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