list_okr_progress_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (calls get_okrs and walks lists) and the limitation that full content is not available. However, it does not discuss error handling (e.g., invalid OKR) or return format details, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose, followed by technical details. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple parameters and lack of output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and internal logic. It mentions the output (IDs with target_id and target_type) but does not fully specify the return structure (e.g., list, pagination). Sufficient 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the okr_id source (from list_user_okrs) and that user_id_type is a pass-through to get_okrs, providing context beyond the schema.

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 lists progress records for an OKR, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_okrs and create_okr_progress_record by explaining it is a workaround due to the lack of a native endpoint, and it extracts only IDs, not full content.

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 when to use this tool by noting it extracts IDs and that full content requires progressRecord.get, which is not yet wrapped. This provides useful context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements compared to alternatives like get_okrs.

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