list_meetings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the listed fields outline the return content. However, it does not disclose ordering, what 'recent' means, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's limit parameter implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the primary action and output fields.

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 simple list tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of sort order, default limit, or interpretation of 'recent'. Since there is no output schema, some additional context about the return structure or ordering 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?

The input schema covers both parameters (limit and since_date) with descriptions, default and max values, and format examples. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for 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 action ('List') and the resource ('meetings'), and specifies the returned fields (title, date, duration, participant names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on transcripts, speakers, or contributions.

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 use for retrieving meeting lists, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, but no direct guidance is provided.

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