say

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, prerequisites beyond an 'active meeting', error behavior (e.g., what happens if the meeting is not active), or whether the tool blocks or returns any data. This is a significant gap for a tool that sends messages.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and the context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools (especially say_local), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool differs from say_local, what an 'active meeting' implies, or what the expected behavior is when called. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly, so the description falls short of being contextually 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (meeting_id and message) fully described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides adequate context. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither helps nor harms.

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 states a clear action ('continue a conversation') with a specific resource ('an active meeting'). It identifies the tool's core function without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'say_local', which likely serves a similar purpose for local meetings, so the distinction is left to inference.

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. It does not mention say_local, start_meeting, or any conditions that would select this tool. The only implicit hint is 'active meeting', but there is no explicit exclusion or comparison, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information.

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