list_meetings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated (beyond the cursor parameter in schema), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List meetings in DevRev'. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, or usage context, leaving significant gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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 62%, providing moderate documentation for parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details, such as explaining filter combinations or default behaviors. However, with schema coverage above 50%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 'List meetings in DevRev' states the basic action (list) and resource (meetings) but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this lists all meetings, filtered meetings, or meetings accessible to the user, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'search' or 'list_works' that might handle similar data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'list_works'. The description implies a listing function but doesn't clarify prerequisites, access requirements, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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