study_get_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returns (status, percentage, elapsed time) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, non-blocking, or require an active operation. Lacks detail on behavior.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple getter with no parameters, but lacks explanation of edge cases (e.g., no active operation, error behavior) and does not describe return format in full.

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?

No parameters, so baseline 4. Description adds meaning by stating what the tool returns, which is beyond the empty 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 gets progress of the current solving operation, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'progress'. It distinguishes from siblings like study_solve or study_cancel by focusing on progress retrieval.

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 after starting a solve operation (e.g., study_solve_async) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor mention alternatives like study_wait for waiting instead of polling.

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