meeting_status

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific status indicators it reports (bot presence, file growth, audio, duration, transcription). However, it does not disclose error behavior, what happens for missing IDs, or whether the tool might block or wait. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, densely informative sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Состояние записи') followed by a clear list of status aspects. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 parameter) and read-only, so the description lists the key status fields, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure, field names, types) or how the status is presented. Since there is no output schema, this information must come from the description, and it is missing. Also, the parameter semantics gap further reduces completeness. A 3 reflects that the description covers the what but not the how.

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 has a single required parameter 'id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to (likely a meeting/recording ID), nor the format or how to obtain it. With zero coverage in the schema and no clarification in the description, the parameter is effectively undocumented. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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's purpose: reporting the status of a recording (whether the bot is in the call, file growth, audio presence, minutes recorded, transcription progress). It uses a specific verb ('состояние' status) and resource (recording), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like transcribe_recording, join_meeting, and get_transcript, which are actions rather than status queries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a status-checking use case, but doesn't state when to prefer it over get_transcript or list_meetings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that a meeting must be active or a recording ID must exist). No exclusions or alternatives named.

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