list_saved_minutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it warns about overwrite behavior when using the same note_id, and describes the returned fields in a structured way. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated first, then an important caution, and a compact Returns section. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the typical usage scenario (pre-save check), and the return structure. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits any parameter details. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and no further explanation is needed.

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 lists saved meeting minutes ('이미 저장된 회의록 목록을 조회합니다'). It distinguishes itself from writing tools by explicitly framing its purpose as a pre-save check, making it unambiguous which sibling it complements (e.g., save_approved_minutes).

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 for when to use the tool: '같은 note_id로 저장하면 덮어쓰기가 되므로, 저장 전에 무엇이 있는지 확인하는 용도입니다.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined and self-explanatory.

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