get_goal_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for 'Get' operations, implying it's read-only, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, though the formatting could be slightly improved (e.g., using bullet points). Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With no annotations, it should provide more context on how the tool behaves in practice to be fully adequate.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'goal_id' is 'The ID of the reading goal'. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides some value, but it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., integer range) or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get books list progress toward a goal.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('books list progress toward a goal'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_reading_goals', which might retrieve goal metadata rather than progress details, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing goal), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_reading_goals' or 'update_reading_goal'. This lack of context could lead to misuse by an AI agent.

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