compute.get_run_progress

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — 'unknown ETA is explicit' — which warns the agent that a missing ETA is signalled rather than silently absent. It says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, or how progress evolves over time.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are packed in a compact list. It is dense to the point of terseness — the semicolon clause reads almost like a fragment — but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description earns credit for enumerating the returned fields and the explicit-unknown-ETA behavior. It still leaves the agent without a clear boundary against the several neighbouring run-inspection tools, which is the main missing piece for a tool of this complexity.

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 could have compensated but does not: run_id format and scope (which run namespace, whether runs from other projects are addressable) are unstated. With only one required, self-evidently named parameter the gap is small, keeping this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read run progress') and enumerates the payload fields (phase, ETA interval/scope/confidence, alerts), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like compute_get_run or compute_wait_run, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instead of compute_get_run, compute_wait_run, or compute_get_logs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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