[Experiment] Check MCP progress display

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares itself read-only, states the runtime (three seconds), the number of notifications emitted, and that it does not start or modify a ZCode task. It does not describe the return payload, but for a disposable probe this is minor.

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 tight sentences with zero padding, and the read-only/experimental nature is front-loaded so an agent immediately knows the safety profile.

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?

A zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic whose full behavior and scope are captured in the description. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

States a specific action (sends three MCP progress notifications over three seconds) and its purpose (test whether the host displays server progress). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings that start or modify ZCode tasks, so an agent can tell it apart from zcode_task or zcode_continue without inspecting schemas.

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 conveys context (a temporary experiment to probe host progress rendering) and an explicit exclusion: it does not start or modify a task. It does not state when-not to use it relative to named alternatives, but there is effectively no competing sibling for this diagnostic role.

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