list_local_meetings

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation scoped to active local meetings and notes the CLI context. It does not describe output format, environment prerequisites, or failure modes, which is a moderate gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by adding scope or context, making it appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description supplies the essential selection criteria: active, local, CLI-based. It does not explicitly contrast with list_meetings or describe output shape, but invocation requires no inputs and the core behavior is adequately specified.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 resource ('active LOCAL meetings'), and the 'LOCAL'/'CLI-based' qualifiers distinguish it from the sibling tool list_meetings. It is specific, non-tautological, and immediately clear what the tool does.

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 'LOCAL' and 'CLI-based' qualifiers make the intended context clear, implying this is for local/CLI meetings rather than general meetings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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