Governance Meetings

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description carries much of the burden. It states that the tool lists meetings and includes motions, votes, and attendee state, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, filtering, or the detailed shape of the returned dict. Given there is an output schema, some return details may be covered, but behavioral specifics like default ordering or whether attendee state is historical are absent.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and contained data. 'Use to see what's being voted on' is an efficient usage hook. It could be improved by adding one sentence on what the returned dict contains, but overall it is concise and structured.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the key data fields, and the intended use. It lacks explicit statement of whether it is read-only and what fields the meeting dict includes, but those are partially mitigated by the output schema and sibling 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?

With zero parameters, the schema requires no parameter explanation. The description adds all necessary semantics by clarifying the resource type and its included data fields. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter gaps to compensate for beyond what the description already states.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List governance meetings with motions, votes, and attendee state.' It distinguishes the tool as a read-only listing operation, and 'Use to see what's being voted on' adds practical clarity. Among siblings it doesn't explicitly differentiate from civitae_vote, but the resource is clearly meetings rather than votes.

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 usage context: 'Use to see what's being voted on' tells an agent when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as civitae_vote or civitae_op_reviews, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick for vote-related queries.

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