list_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: meetings are 'derived from the workspace feed', rescheduled meetings show the latest time, and results are sorted by start. This gives an agent useful expectations about data freshness and ordering.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose upfront, followed by relevant behavioral caveats and sorting. Each clause carries information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: it lists the output fields, notes the data source, explains update behavior, and the schema covers all parameters. Minor gaps like pagination are absent, but they are not essential for a basic list operation.

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 fully documents both parameters (workspace_id and origin) at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description adds no extra semantic value about parameters, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 identifies a specific verb ('list'), a distinct resource ('meetings'), and a clear scope ('in a workspace'), and enumerates the returned fields. It also gives concrete meeting types as examples, making it unambiguous what the tool retrieves.

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 when to use it: when you need vendor-scheduled meetings in a workspace, with fields like title, times, join link, and password. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as what to use for unscheduled meetings or how this differs from listing other resources.

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