get_meeting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves the 'entire' minutes, indicating a read operation and full-document return. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, errors, or pagination, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what it does and how to obtain the parameter. It does not describe return format, but the lack of an output schema and simplicity of the tool make this acceptable, though a hint about the response structure would improve it.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, explaining issueID as the identifier from 'search_speeches の items[].issueID'. The tool description repeats this same information, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Specify the meeting minutes identifier (issueID) to retrieve the entire meeting minutes.' It uses a specific verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (会議録全体/entire minutes), and distinguishes from siblings by implying it returns the full document rather than summaries or analyses.

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 provides clear context on how to obtain the required issueID by instructing to use 'search_speeches の items[].issueID'. This implies a workflow (search first, then retrieve full minutes) and differentiates from siblings, though it does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use it.

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