get_thread_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only' and 'bounded' in the description largely restate structured data rather than adding value. The description does add 'live' and 'Desktop' context, which narrows the domain, but otherwise contributes little beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The phrase 'and read-only' is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, which is a minor waste of words, but overall the description is tight and scannable.

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 moderate complexity (three parameters including a non-obvious pagination cursor afterSequence) and no output schema. The description does not explain the pagination mechanism, the return format, or how this tool relates to its siblings watch_thread and get_thread_progress_summary. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, this is an incomplete definition.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains none of them: threadId is self-evident from the name, limit is only vaguely implied by 'bounded', and afterSequence (a pagination cursor) is completely unexplained. At 0% coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('live Desktop progress events for a thread'), and scope ('bounded'). It is distinguishable from siblings like watch_thread (continuous vs one-shot) and get_thread_progress_summary (events vs summary), but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus watch_thread (for streaming), get_thread_progress_summary (for aggregated results), or get_thread. The word 'bounded' implies a one-shot limited read, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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