list_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, date, title). However, there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or limits, though the tool has no parameters, making this adequate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and no superfluous information is included.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema (indicated by context), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a simple list-all tool with good annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly lists what is returned.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'board meetings', and specifies the returned fields (id, date, title). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_meeting (which likely returns full details) and list_motions (different resource type).

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 a simple listing tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that for a specific meeting's full details, one should use get_meeting. Some guidance on use cases and exclusions would improve clarity.

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