progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds that results are grouped per platform and enumerates the three metrics, but says nothing about whether platforms with zero activity are included or how 'due now' is evaluated. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the grouping key ('per platform') is stated first followed by the three returned metrics. Every phrase carries content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, which lowers the burden. However, the description omits scoping facts an agent would want for a metrics endpoint, such as whether platforms with no review activity appear and over what time window 'due now' is computed.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; baseline for a no-param schema is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names the resource and its breakdown clearly: per-platform counts of 'problems reviewed', 'reviews logged', and 'problems due for revision now'. That is enough to tell it returns progress metrics rather than raw problem or mistake data. It stops short of 5 because it uses no explicit verb and never differentiates itself from overlapping siblings such as show_dashboard or revisions_due.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, despite siblings (show_dashboard, revisions_due, get_profile) that plausibly return overlapping information. The only implicit cue is the word 'progress'. An agent must guess whether this is the summary tool or whether show_dashboard is preferred.

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