get_exam_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful exclusion rule — single-question pages do not count as whole-paper progress — but it omits required state, side effects, and what the snapshot represents.

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 very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It front-loads the counting rule but leaves the core action implicit.

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 with a nested required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. The output schema can cover return values, but the description still fails to explain the snapshot input, the progress calculation, or when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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 sole required parameter, 'snapshot', is a nested object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions the parameter or explains what must be passed, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 implies that progress is based on counting observed saved answers, but it never explicitly states that the tool returns exam progress or what the returned progress represents. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling progress tools such as exam_loop_progress or exam_browser_progress.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related exam-progress and capture-status tools. The single caveat about single-question pages is a counting rule, not an alternative-selection guideline.

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