list_meetings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions timestamps are UTC and implies pagination, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or any destructive aspects. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and features, and provides guidance in the second. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Highly concise 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?

Given the tool has 11 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and points to alternatives, but lacks details on return format, pagination details (e.g., total pages), or ordering. For a complex filtering tool, more context would be helpful, but it is not incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'optional filtering and pagination' is already evident from the schema). It does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 lists meetings with optional filtering and pagination, and distinguishes from siblings by directing to get_summary/get_transcript for detailed content. The verb 'list' and resource 'meetings' are explicit.

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 advises using get_summary or get_transcript for detailed content, indicating when not to use this tool. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like list_teams, though those are for different resources. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions for all alternatives.

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