accelo_list_progressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation through 'List' and clarifies the domain, but does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or return format.

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 appropriately sized, front-loads the core action, and uses a compact Args list with no filler. It could be slightly more integrated, but it is efficient and readable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to identify the resource and valid object types, but it does not describe what a progression object contains or any operational constraints such as pagination or auth.

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 must compensate. It enumerates valid object types for object_type (valuable meaning beyond the schema), but object_id is only restated as 'The object's ID,' leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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 ('List') and resource ('progressions for an object'), and clarifies the domain by equating progressions with 'possible status transitions.' It does not explicitly name the sibling accelo_run_progression as the alternative for executing a transition, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 only says what the tool does, not when to use it versus alternatives. It provides no context about prerequisites, when to prefer this over accelo_run_progression, or any exclusions.

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