get_meeting

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description focuses on adding constraints: a hard server-version requirement and the fact that agenda data is deliberately omitted from this response. It stops short of explaining why lock_version is surfaced (presumably for optimistic concurrency on updates).

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 short paragraphs, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the prerequisite/related-tool notes placed after it. Every sentence conveys distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and the description correctly covers prerequisites and where related data lives. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify what lock_version is for or what an agent should expect when the meeting id is stale or missing.

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% and the single meeting_id parameter is documented as coming 'from list_meetings', so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the implicit id-based lookup framing, nothing about format or invalid-id handling.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single OpenProject meeting by id') and enumerates the returned aspects: schedule, state, participants, lock_version. The word 'single' plus the referenced siblings make it distinguishable from list_meetings without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes agenda retrieval elsewhere ('Its agenda comes from list_meeting_sections and list_meeting_agenda_items'), which is a real alternative-selection cue. It also states the version prerequisite (OpenProject 17.4+), though it does not spell out when-not-to-use or how it behaves for a nonexistent id.

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