Extract Action Items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (JSON list with fields). However, it doesn't mention cuteness behaviors like non-determinism of the model, cost/latency implications, or behavior on empty transcripts. It's adequate but leaves the agent uninformed about side effects beyond the happy path.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose leads, and the return contract follows. Every word earns its place, and an agent can parse the intent immediately.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the input (transcript text), the transformation (extract action items), and the output shape (JSON with owner and due date). It could note expected input size or error behavior, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'model' and 'transcriptText' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level insight—it doesn't mention what 'model' does, what formats 'transcriptText' accepts, or any defaults. It earns the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 specific verb+resource ('Extract action items from a meeting transcript') that clearly differentiates from siblings like summarize_transcript and extract_decisions. The second sentence adds the output contract (JSON list with owner and due date), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied—extract action items for this tool vs. extract_decisions or summarize_transcript for others—but no explicit 'when to use/when not to use' guidance is given. An agent would have to infer the boundary between 'action items' and 'decisions' from naming alone.

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