List meetings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first') and the state vocabulary ('scheduled, live, ended'), which is genuine behavioral context about the payload. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, auth requirements, or whether the list is scoped to the caller.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; scope, ordering, and state are front-loaded in one pass. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, in what order, and the state values returned. The main remaining gap is unbounded-result behavior (pagination or truncation), which matters for a list tool but is a single omission.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Meetings') and pins down scope ('this server created or joined'), ordering ('newest first'), and the returned state field. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an action statement, and it never names a sibling, but no other tool in the set enumerates meetings, so an agent can still place it.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool, and the scope qualifier ('this server created or joined') hints at when results apply. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing against adjacent tools such as 'status' or 'get_transcript'.

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