get_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the operation as read-only and clarifies that it returns real user progress, not AI co-reading progress. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple read tool with an output schema this is fairly strong disclosure.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, adds the read-only qualifier, and names the alternative tool. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has only one required parameter, an output schema, and a clear sibling distinction. The description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and alternative routing, which is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description does not explain book_id or how it relates to the progress being fetched. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's title.

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 identifies the resource as the user's real reading progress, states the operation is read-only, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_reader_bookmark, which covers AI co-reading progress. This fully disambiguates the tool from its closest sibling.

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 explicitly states that AI co-reading progress should use get_reader_bookmark instead and stresses that the two must be kept strictly separate. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with the alternative named directly.

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