get_committee_meets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose return behavior (JSON string containing meeting info) and error behavior (Chinese error messages). However, it lacks context about permissions, rate limits, or the relationship between comt_cd and the committee list, which would be useful for an agent.

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 structured with clear Args/Returns/Raises sections and is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is lengthy and repeats the schema's parameter information almost verbatim, which is redundant for an agent that already has access to the input schema. A more concise description would omit the duplicated parameter lines.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly comprehensive: it states the purpose, documents all parameters with examples, describes the JSON return format, and notes error behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields further. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but otherwise provides enough context to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, including examples and defaults, without adding additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither compensates for missing schema info nor adds new insights.

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 opens with '取得委員會相關會議列表', which clearly states the tool returns a list of committee-related meetings. The verb '取得' (get) and resource '委員會相關會議列表' are specific, and the committee scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_meet (single meeting) and list_meets (all meetings).

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 implies usage when committee meetings are needed by providing the required comt_cd parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_meets, get_meet, or get_bill_meets. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving usage to be inferred.

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