Get Progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain what happens with the empty default operation_id, whether an unknown operation yields an error or empty result, or what the progress payload represents.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Operation lifecycle and session management') is generic filler that earns no place—it neither scopes the tool nor routes to an alternative.

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 return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Still, for a read tool with an ambiguous empty-default operation_id and several start-oriented parameters, the description leaves real gaps about invocation correctness.

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 four parameters are documented structurally, which sets the baseline at 3. However, the description does not clarify the confusing presence of start-only parameters (operation_type, total_steps, details) in a get-progress schema, so it adds no value over the 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 verb+resource ('Get progress') is identifiable, and the parenthetical 'tm_operations' names the domain. But 'Operation lifecycle and session management' is vague filler that doesn't say what progress data is actually retrieved, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like tm_operation_get_metrics or tm_operation_list_sessions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus tm_operation_get_metrics or tm_operation_list_sessions, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid operation_id from tm_operation_start. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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