list_meetings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('list') with no side effects, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention any potential auth requirements, return format, pagination, or what qualifies as 'active'. The description is minimal but not misleading, 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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify the scope of 'active meetings' or distinguish from 'list_local_meetings', which could lead to misuse. Given the sibling context, a small note about the distinction would greatly improve completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, the description doesn't need to add meaning. Nothing is missing here, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('all active meetings'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish between remote and local meetings, which could be confusing given the sibling 'list_local_meetings'. Still, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to know it lists meetings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_local_meetings' or 'list_collaborations'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or why someone would choose this tool over a sibling. This is a significant gap given the number of similar listing tools.

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