get_checklist_progress

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation and describes what the caller gets: progress for all checklists on the card plus detailed statistics. It does not specify the exact statistics shape, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, resource, scope, and expected output type are all communicated efficiently.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: required input is clear and return content is named. It could be improved by specifying the statistics fields or error behavior, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms cardId refers to a card and the scope is that card's checklists, but it adds no format, source, or example beyond the schema's '24 characters' note.

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 specific verb ('Récupère'), a clear resource ('la progression de toutes les checklists d'une carte'), and adds a differentiator ('avec statistiques détaillées'). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like add_checklist_item or check_checklist_item.

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 tool's purpose implies it should be used when retrieving checklist progress, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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