Progress of a regime optimization started with start_regime_optimization.
Returns `{task_id, status, progress, message, dashboard_url}`. When the
run has finished, the answer also carries `result`, the same summary
`summarize_workflow` gives, and `report_url`, the report, which the
run's card in the chat shows.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it enumerates the returned fields and explains that `result` and `report_url` appear only once the run has finished. It does not describe the possible `status` values or polling/rate-limit behavior.
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?
Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape. Minor waste in the odd indented/multi-line quote formatting, but no content is superfluous.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return payload and the conditional completion fields, and it cross-references `summarize_workflow` for the result shape. Missing only status enumeration and polling guidance for a progress-checking tool.
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?
Only one parameter (`task_id`) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the id originates from `start_regime_optimization`, but never states the id format, lifetime, or the error behavior for an unknown/expired id.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (progress of a regime optimization) and ties it directly to the sibling that creates the run, `start_regime_optimization`. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named `get_regime_analysis_progress`, relying on the reader to map 'optimization' vs 'analysis'.
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?
Implicitly defines when to use it by reference to `start_regime_optimization` (i.e., after starting such a run), but never says whether to poll, how often, or when to prefer `list_my_running_tasks` instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.