get_meeting_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what data is returned (relationship summary, history, commitments) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose potential privacy implications, data freshness, or whether this aggregates from multiple sources. The output schema exists, but the behavioral scope could be richer.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose stated immediately, bulleted output list, and a one-line usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 read-only context-gathering tool with a good output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys what output to expect and when to use it. It could mention whether stale or minimal relationships are handled gracefully, but this is adequate for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to heavily document parameters. The description notes 'For each attendee' and 'per person' for history_limit, which aligns with the schema descriptions. The description adds a small nuance (context is per-attendee) but the schema already handles parameter semantics well.

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 retrieves relationship context for meeting attendees, listing the specific outputs (relationship summary, interaction history, commitments). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like get_relationship_summary and get_person_history by being attendee-focused and meeting-oriented, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 this before meetings to be fully prepared,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer it complements rather than replaces other commitment/relationship tools.

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