meeting_extract

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the non-destructive behavior (no DB write), describes the internal processing logic, and mentions the follow-up flow. It could elaborate on edge cases or input expectations, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action, includes essential caveats, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, core behavior, and the relation to todo_create_apply. The output schema covers return values. Missing explanation of the 'category' parameter and potential input format constraints, but overall sufficient for basic 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly indicates 'text' is the meeting minutes content, but the 'category' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states the tool extracts draft to-dos from meeting minutes text, with specific processing steps (action word scan + date conversion). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it only returns drafts without writing to the database.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (extraction/preview) and when to call the alternative todo_create_apply for persisting. The 'only return drafts, don't write to DB' phrase provides clear usage guidance and names the follow-up tool.

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