meeting_recap_email

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool summarizes discussions, confirms decisions, lists next steps, and creates a paper trail. It also notes the draft limit policy. It does not mention if it sends the email or only drafts, which is a minor gap, but overall transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, actions, benefit, and draft limit. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters (all documented), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what inputs are needed. No major 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context: meeting_type shapes tone, key_points are rough notes shaped into prose, and next_steps include owners. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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 writes a post-meeting recap email, specifies the resource (email to client after meetings), and lists meeting types (discovery, check-in, kickoff, review). It distinguishes from other email tools by focusing on post-meeting recaps.

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 states when to use (after specific meeting types) and mentions it does not count against draft limit. It does not directly exclude alternatives but given the context, the usage is clear. Could be improved by noting when not to use, but it is adequate.

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