kalei_run_progress

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape enough to signal this is a read-only status operation. But it doesn't state what happens for invalid or completed run IDs, whether polling is expected, or any side-effect profile, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and every word earns its place. It names the tool's purpose and return values without any fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could be more complete by covering edge cases like unknown or finished run IDs, but nothing essential for a basic call 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 schema already documents run_id at 100% coverage, including its origin ('Run ID from kalei_profile_model'). The description adds only the contextual notion of an 'ongoing' run, which is useful but not a substantive semantic addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Check progress') and resource ('ongoing profiling run'), and explicitly lists the return information: completion percentage and current environment. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the purpose is clearly distinct from tools like kalei_run_result or kalei_run_start.

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 phrase 'progress of an ongoing profiling run' gives clear context for when to use the tool: when checking status rather than starting, advancing, or retrieving final results. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of fully directional usage guidance.

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