parse_meeting_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it parses text to extract specific elements, creates Todoist tasks automatically, infers due dates and priorities, and optionally routes tasks to a project. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parsing fails, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and an optional feature. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy and focusing on key actions and outcomes.

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 complexity (parsing and task creation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration specifics. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate, but it provides a clear starting point.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('raw_notes' and 'target_project_name'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning that parsing extracts action items, decisions, etc., from 'raw_notes' and that routing is optional to a 'target project by name', but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('parse') and resource ('raw meeting note text'), and it details the extraction targets (action items, decisions, follow-ups, deadlines) and the creation of Todoist tasks with inferred due dates and priorities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' by focusing on parsing and automated task creation from notes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have raw meeting notes to parse into structured tasks. It implies an alternative by mentioning the optional routing to a target project, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'create_task' for manual task creation).

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