get_review_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key behavioral trait: there is no background job. However, it does not describe whether the call is read-only, how progress is represented, or what the response contains beyond what the output schema already provides. The disclosure is helpful but thin.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause carries useful information: what the tool queries, that there is no background job, and how to relate it to get_case_status. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies the purpose, the key behavior, and the relevant sibling. The main gap is that it does not clearly define what get_review_progress itself returns versus what get_case_status provides, but the output schema and explicit pointer to get_case_status mitigate this.

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 schema has one required parameter, case_id, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation of the parameter. The name is somewhat self-explanatory in context, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage by explaining how case_id is used or any constraints on it.

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 uses a clear verb ('查询' / query) and resource ('阅卷进度' / review progress), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_case_status by stating that there is no background job and that host execution progress should be judged via get_case_status's section_counts. This gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 mentions an alternative, get_case_status, and explains that its section_counts field should be used to determine host execution progress. It also warns that there is no background job. It could be stronger by stating exact conditions for when to prefer get_review_progress over get_case_status, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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