fireflies_generate_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('generate a summary') but doesn't describe what the summary includes (e.g., key points, action items), how long it takes, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence: 'Generate a summary of a meeting transcript.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 (transcript_id and format with enum values). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a transcript_id is, where to get it, or the implications of the format choices. 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a summary of a meeting transcript' specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('summary of a meeting transcript'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fireflies_get_transcript_details' which retrieves details rather than generating summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative summary tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid transcript_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'fireflies_search_transcripts' for finding transcripts first. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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