list_meetings

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the return shape (IDs, titles, timestamps) and the source (Jamie AI). Missing are pagination behavior, authentication prerequisites, or side effects, which for a list operation are generally minimal. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return value, second provides guidance to a sibling tool. No wasted words and information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and points to get_meeting for details. It lacks explicit mention of pagination (cursor) but the schema covers it. Nearly complete for a straightforward read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters having descriptive text. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states action ('List meetings') and resource ('from Jamie AI'), and specifies the output fields (meeting IDs, titles, timestamps). It distinguishes from sibling get_meeting by indicating that full details require a different tool.

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?

Explicitly advises using get_meeting to retrieve full details, which provides clear alternative context. However, it does not mention other siblings like search_meetings or list_tags, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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