knowledge_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (track progression and show status movement) but lacks details on output format, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. The mention of 'over time' hints at historical data, but this isn't elaborated.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by combining ideas about status progression.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with good description coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like data scope or limitations.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'topic' parameter's purpose (to filter by topic tag), provides an example ('calculus'), clarifies it's optional, and specifies that leaving it blank shows all topics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Track Knowledge Status progression across your Review (REV) entries' and explains it visualizes how topics move through status levels over time. It specifies the resource (REV entries) and verb (track progression), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats' which might also provide progress-related data.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'REV entries' and 'Knowledge Status field', suggesting it's for tracking learning progress in a review system. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_stats' or 'journal_health', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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