transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the key behavioral trait that it returns the complete record, not just a recent slice. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like output format, rate limits, or how tail_lines interacts with the 'complete' claim. The disclosure is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It succinctly conveys scope and usage without wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps: the session parameter is undocumented, and the relationship between 'complete record' and the tail_lines parameter (which limits to last N lines) is ambiguous. The phrase 'complete meeting record' might mislead an agent into thinking it always returns everything, while tail_lines suggests a limit. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify these points.

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 only 50% (tail_lines is described, session is not). The description does not compensate: it never mentions session or tail_lines, leaving the required session parameter unexplained. The meaning of tail_lines as 'last N lines' is provided by the schema, but the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 reads the complete meeting record, distinguishing it from other tools that provide only partial batches. The verb 'Read' and the resource 'meeting record' are specific, and the contrast with 'batches worth a turn' differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use for wrap-up or to reconcile something you missed.' This gives clear usage context. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the phrase 'not just the batches worth a turn' implies when not to use it (when only recent context is needed).

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