telivy_get_risk_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool compares two timestamp groups and reports on finding categories, which gives a sense of the operation. However, it does not describe the output format, whether it returns counts, lists, or both, or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if no previous scan exists). Since the tool is a read operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but the return structure is unspecified.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the comparison scope and categories. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return content. It does mention the categories of findings, which gives a good sense of what the report will contain. However, it does not clarify whether the report is a summary, a detailed list, or includes counts. For a tool with three simple parameters, this is nearly sufficient, but a bit more detail about the response shape would make it complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the purpose of comparison (new/resolved/regressed/open) but does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. The parameter descriptions themselves are clear, so the description adds minimal extra value here.

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 ('Get') and resource ('risk progress report'), and specifies the comparison scope ('two scan timestamp groups') plus the categories of findings (new/resolved/regressed/open). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like telivy_get_risk_assessment, which likely returns overall assessment details, and telivy_get_risk_assessment_scan_status, which focuses on scan status rather than progress.

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 comparing risk progress between two scan groups) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. For example, it doesn't distinguish from telivy_get_risk_assessment or telivy_get_risk_assessment_scan_status. The usage context is clear enough but not exhaustive.

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