list_meeting_agenda_items

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the server-version requirement, that the endpoint is unpaginated server-side and offset/limit are applied client-side, and that text is truncated with notes_truncated/notes_length flags. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite, then pagination, then truncation semantics in a logical order. Slightly verbose across multiple short paragraphs, but every line carries substantive 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the truncation-related return fields and the client-side pagination model, plus the version gate. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 60% and the biggest gap, text_limit (no schema description), is fully explained including its default being the server-configured limit rather than unlimited. It also clarifies that offset/limit are client-side, adding meaning beyond the schema's pagination hints; select and meeting_id rely on the schema.

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 ('List the agenda items of one meeting') and scopes it to a single meeting via meeting_id. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling list_work_package_meeting_agenda_items, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the 'of one meeting' scoping; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over list_work_package_meeting_agenda_items or get_meeting_agenda_item. The version prerequisite (OpenProject 17.4+) is a useful precondition but not a when-to-use rule.

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