Read recent progress log entries to resume your previous coaching focus at the start of a session.
Reads the latest sessions from the progress log (~/VoiceCoach/progress.md).
Use it at the start of a session to pick up the previous focus. Returns `file`,
`total_entries` and `entries` (markdown of each session, oldest to newest).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the file location and the ordering of returned session markdown (oldest to newest), which is a behavioral detail an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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?
Three short sentences: purpose and location first, the usage trigger second, the return shape last. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, yet it helpfully sketches them. The one real hole is the undocumented 'entries' parameter; otherwise an agent has everything needed to call this simple read tool correctly.
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% and the single parameter 'entries' (default 5) is never explained — the reader cannot tell whether it controls how many sessions are returned or how many markdown lines. Worse, the name collides with the returned 'entries' field, so the description actively muddies rather than clarifies the parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Reads the latest sessions from the progress log') and even names the backing file path (~/VoiceCoach/progress.md). It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling log_progress by the read/write naming pair, but it never explicitly contrasts with it.
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?
'Use it at the start of a session to pick up the previous focus' gives a clear triggering context, which is more than most read tools offer. It stops short of naming log_progress as the counterpart to use when writing, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.