Convo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that summaries are generated automatically if not available, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like performance (e.g., latency for generation), error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool that might involve processing.

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 very concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds a key behavioral note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavior (automatic generation). However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings, which could be helpful given the complexity of summary generation. It's adequate 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'meeting_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get the summary of a meeting including key points, decisions, and action items.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('summary of a meeting') with details on content (key points, decisions, action items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transcript' or 'find_action_items', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance: it mentions generating automatically if not yet available, suggesting it's for retrieving or creating summaries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transcript' for raw content or 'find_action_items' for specific extraction, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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