list-meeting-transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that only metadata (id, created date) is returned, which implies content is excluded, but it never explicitly says transcript content is not included, nor does it mention that the operation is read-only or how pagination/truncation behaves beyond what the schema already documents. This partial disclosure could mislead an agent into expecting full transcript text.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then quickly adds the key output detail. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 simple listing tool, the description is mostly adequate and the schema covers parameters well. However, it lacks an explicit statement that only metadata is returned and that transcript content should be fetched via a sibling tool. This leaves the tool's role among the meeting-related siblings under-specified, though not critically 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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (meetingId, cursor, maxItems) with clear descriptions, including pagination semantics and defaults. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('transcripts available for an online meeting'), and specifies the returned metadata (id, created date). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get-meeting-transcript-content or list-meeting-recordings, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get-meeting-transcript-content should be used when the actual transcript text is needed, nor does it describe any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and brief description.

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