get_progress

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, what a 'progress summary' includes, or any behavioral traits like data freshness or limits.

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 short sentence, which is efficient but too vague to be helpful. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, providing minimal actionable information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should explain the return format of the progress summary. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools. The tool's complexity is low, but the description remains incomplete.

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 sole parameter 'period' has a default of 'all' but no description in the schema or the tool description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain valid values (e.g., 'week', 'month') or the meaning of the parameter.

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 clearly states 'Get reading progress summary across all domains.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_reading_log' or 'analyze_reading_patterns'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_reading_log' or 'analyze_reading_patterns'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage conditions or exclusions.

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