teamleader_meetings_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. 'List meetings' implies a non-destructive action but fails to state it explicitly.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse, underspecifying the tool's behavior and parameters. It is structured appropriately but lacks substance.

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 low complexity (simple list with two pagination parameters) and no output schema, the description still falls short. It does not clarify that results are paginated or how the page parameters affect the response. The lack of annotations and minimal description leaves critical usage details unstated.

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 schema has 50% coverage (only page_size has a description), and the tool description does not mention page or page_size at all. Thus, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the 'page' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'meetings,' clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling meeting tools (create, complete) by presenting a fundamentally different operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate in text.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It simply says 'List meetings,' leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling names.

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