prep_meeting

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 states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It covers what it does but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides lookup guidance and use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, lookup modes, and use case. It is missing details about the return format or edge cases like empty results, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional relationship between activity_id and date+title_contains (use one or the other), which is not captured in the schema. The description also reinforces the purpose of lookback_days and per_person_limit, though those are already described in the schema.

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 returns event details plus each attendee's recent shipped activity, which is a specific verb-resource combination ('Brief for a calendar meeting'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_activity or list_activities by combining multiple data sources.

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 explicit lookup strategies (by activity_id vs date+title_contains) and a clear use case ('walk into a 1:1 or sync'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear.

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