Get Meeting Chat

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

The description extensively discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: writing files with save_path ('writes <base>.json + <base>.txt'), returning a compact summary instead of messages, and the truncation caveat ('non-empty truncated_channels means those channels hit limit'). These details add significant context about side effects and data completeness, which the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 well-structured and information-dense without being verbose. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the core function, explaining parameter resolution, describing side effects, and documenting return format with a caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the five parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format, the meaning of truncated channels, the save_path file-writing behavior, and the parameter resolution. There are no significant gaps that would hinder an agent from invoking the tool 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between recording_id and conference_key ('The chat lives on the meeting, not the recording') and the side effect of save_path returning a summary instead of messages. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a 4.

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 retrieves meeting chat across all channels, merged and time-ordered. It identifies the resource (meeting chat) and differentiates from siblings like get_meeting and get_recording by focusing on chat content. The mention of passing conference_key or resolving via recording_id further clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, explaining the difference between conference_key and recording_id: 'pass conference_key, or a recording_id whose conference_key is resolved.' It also explains the save_path behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_meeting or get_recording). This is clear context without explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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