Convo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned (owner, priority, meeting source), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are structured/paginated. The description provides basic output format but lacks operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose and output format. The first sentence states the core function, the second specifies what information is returned. No wasted words or redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks behavioral details that would be important for an AI agent (like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are structured, or operational constraints). The description is complete enough for basic understanding but has clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions temporal scope ('recent meetings') which aligns with the 'days' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('find all action items'), resource ('across your recent meetings'), and scope ('shows who owns each item, priority, and which meeting it came from'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_summary' or 'list_meetings' by focusing specifically on action items rather than general meeting information.

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 usage context ('across your recent meetings') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_summary' or 'list_meetings'. No explicit guidance is provided about when-not-to-use or prerequisites, though the mention of 'recent meetings' suggests temporal limitations.

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