list_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a version compatibility boundary and the cross-project readability scope. It does not describe response shape or pagination behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by prerequisite and scoping details. The version-compatibility sentence is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by preventing an incompatible-version call.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, and scoping scope. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, nothing tells the agent what a meeting record contains, but the pagination fields in the schema carry most of the operational load.

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%, so limit/offset/project are already documented; the description adds semantics the schema lacks by explaining what omitting project actually means (all readable projects). That is a genuine increment over the baseline of 3.

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 OpenProject meetings') and adds a scope qualifier ('optionally scoped to a project'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as list_recurring_meetings or list_meeting_agenda_items, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives two concrete usage conditions: a hard prerequisite (OpenProject 17.4+, with 16.6 explicitly ruled out) and a scoping rule ('Omit project to list across all readable projects'). It stops short of naming alternative tools for single-meeting or recurring-meeting retrieval.

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