get_thread_progress_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the output is a simplified summary and deliberately excludes raw event details, which is useful. It does not disclose return format, freshness guarantees, or any other runtime behavior.

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 words. It states the core behavior and a key exclusion without wasting space, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, read-only, one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output character well. It could be more complete by hinting at return shape or naming sibling alternatives, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly with a threadId.

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, threadId, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly explain it. However, the parameter is unambiguous from its name and the tool's purpose, so an agent can infer its meaning without additional semantic help.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('simple user-facing live progress summary'), and adds the key differentiator 'without raw event details,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that expose raw events or detailed progress. It does not name an alternative sibling, so it stops just 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when a user-facing, non-raw progress summary is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives such as get_thread_progress or events_read, so usage context is only implied.

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