单个任务进度

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a ~30s plugin cold-start latency window and the anti-pattern of resubmitting a job whose counters have not moved. This timing and retry guidance is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the operational caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description conveys what is returned (progress and network speed) and the key latency behavior, which is adequate for a read-only progress poll with no output schema. It falls short on the undocumented stateDir parameter and on how progress/status/network speed are actually represented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. It implies jobId is the target of the lookup but gives no format hints, and the stateDir parameter is never mentioned at all.

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 names a specific verb (看/view) and resource (实时进度与网速 for one jobId), which is enough to distinguish it from the list/cancel/pause siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling chrome_download_status, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

It gives real usage context: cold start can take ~30s, so unmoving numbers on a fresh task are normal and the user should not resubmit. That is useful 'when' guidance, but it never states when to choose this over chrome_download_status or chrome_download_wait, so the alternative-selection gap remains.

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