exam_browser_progress

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the tool 'reads'. It does not confirm read-only safety, clarify what 'verified' or 'handoff mode' entails, or note any preconditions on the run state. An output schema exists, so return shape is partly covered, but the operation's behavior remains opaque.

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?

A single tightly-scoped sentence with no filler, and the object of the read is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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 tool embedded among dozens of exam-browser siblings with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. The output schema offsets the need to describe return values, but nothing explains the run_id's role, the mode's meaning, or invocation context, leaving the definition incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (run_id) is never mentioned in the description. Although run_id is a fairly self-evident name, the description provides no meaning about what run it identifies or whether it must match a live session. With coverage this low, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 verb (Read) and a resource (verified draft count) for a specific mode (browser-controller handoff). However, 'actual verified draft count' and 'handoff mode' are jargon-laden, and it does nothing to distinguish this from near-neighbor siblings like exam_loop_progress, confirm_exam_browser_draft, or prepare_exam_browser_step. An agent can guess it reads a count but cannot confidently place it among the many exam-browser tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. Given the dense cluster of exam_browser_* / owned_exam_* tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap. The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the name.

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