prepare_meeting_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it fetches threads sorted by recency and requires at least one parameter. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies data, rate limits, or that the syncBefore parameter triggers a refresh. Partial but 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?

Three sentences, no wasted words, immediately states the purpose and usage context. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains what the tool does and key parameters but is vague on the return format ('Returns matched threads' – no details on structure). Leaves some gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that at least one of person or domain is needed and that results are sorted by recency, going beyond schema information.

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 'Fetch recent threads and communication history' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on meeting preparation context.

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 explicitly says 'Use before a scheduled meeting to surface relevant recent correspondence' and 'Provide at least one of person...or domain', but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with similar tools like search_emails.

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