get_meet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and error behavior (Chinese error messages). This is a read operation with no side effects mentioned, which is sufficient.

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 short and structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises). It front-loads the purpose. Minor inconsistency: starts in Chinese but uses English headings.

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 one parameter, existence of an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is appropriately complete. It covers purpose, parameter, return format, and error handling. No obvious gaps for the tool's complexity.

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 already describes meet_id with an example. The description's Args section repeats the same example, adding no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 it retrieves detailed information of a specific meeting (取得特定會議的詳細資訊). The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_meet_bills or get_meet_ivods, though the name and context imply the distinction.

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 for getting meeting details but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, so usage context is only implied.

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