meet_list_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and gives an example resource format, but does not elaborate on edge cases, permissions, or return behavior beyond the basic listing. It is not misleading, but lacking depth. With annotations absent, a simple 'List' statement is adequate for a low-complexity tool, but more context like pagination or ordering would improve it.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately includes an example. There is no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present. The description covers the purpose and the parameter format, which is sufficient. It could mention that it returns both participants and sessions separately, but the output schema likely handles that. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string). The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing the exact expected format: 'e.g. conferenceRecords/abc-defg-hij'. This is valuable additional meaning that helps the agent construct the correct argument. It does not fully explain all edge cases, but the example is a strong hint.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource: 'participants and their sessions for a conference record'. It also gives an example of the conference record name, which clearly defines the scope. This distinguishes it from the similar sibling tool 'meet_list_participant_sessions' by emphasizing both participants and sessions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'for a conference record', with an example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'meet_list_participant_sessions' or mention any exclusions. It gives enough context to understand the intended use case without explicit when-not guidance.

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