Extract Decisions

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns a JSON list, but it does not clarify whether the tool modifies any state, whether it requires any authentication or permissions, or how it handles ambiguous or partial decisions in the transcript. For a tool that likely performs extraction, more behavioral context (e.g., does it only return confirmed decisions, what happens if none are found) would be valuable.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary detail. It front-loads the core purpose ('Extract confirmed decisions') and mentions the output format. However, it could be slightly more informative about behavioral nuances, but for length and structure, it is appropriately sized.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and output. However, in the context of siblings like 'summarize_transcript' and 'extract_action_items', it could be more explicit about how it differs and what qualifies as a 'confirmed decision'. The absence of output schema means the description should clarify the return structure, which it does partially (JSON list), but more detail on the JSON format (e.g., fields) would improve completeness.

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%, so both parameters ('model' and 'transcriptText') are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. The 'model' parameter is optional and has a description, but the description could clarify the default model or format expectations, though this is not required given high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'extract' and the resource 'confirmed decisions from a meeting transcript', and it implies the output is a JSON list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'extract_action_items' and 'summarize_transcript' by focusing on decisions rather than actions or summaries, though it could more explicitly name these alternatives.

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 when to use it (when you need to extract decisions from a transcript), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools like 'extract_action_items' and 'summarize_transcript', additional guidance on choosing among them would be helpful. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but no explicit exclusions are provided.

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