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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: 'Changes nothing else', that 'done' marks the job finished, that 'problem' marks a blocker, and that step/of draw a progress bar. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, kind/progress behavior, non-interference, and workflow pointer. There is no wasted text.

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 that annotations already cover the safety profile and the input schema is fully documented, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It explains the tool's role, key status semantics, and where to find workflow guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of kind and progress-bar parameters, but does not add substantial semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: it shows one short status sentence in the user's Motion tab while work is in progress. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like wait_for_tab or check_playback, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: while work is in progress, so the user can tell progress from a stall. It also explains kind 'done' and 'problem', and points to read_skill {topic:'motion-workflow'} for workflow fit. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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