list_saved_minutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the return fields (note_id, path, line count, UTC timestamp, hash) and the overwrite-check use case, which is meaningful beyond the structured metadata. No contradictions.

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 plus a Returns block, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place; the overwrite warning and return format are concise and valuable.

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 parameterless read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema (and the description enumerating the return fields), the definition is fully sufficient for correct invocation. No missing information.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exists, and the empty schema is fully covered. Nothing else 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 already-saved meeting minutes, using a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (saved minutes). It also adds the overwrite warning context, which distinguishes it from similar list tools like list_dummy_notes.

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 explicitly frames the purpose as checking what exists before saving, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous given the tool's specificity.

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