get_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns predicted targets, latest actuals, deviation analysis, and implementation state conditionally (dependent on sync_implementation_state). This is transparent about the data and dependency, though it could explicitly state it's read-only.

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 two sentences (40 words), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (predicted targets, actuals, deviation, implementation state). It also mentions the dependency on sync_implementation_state. Minor gaps: no details on error cases or the exact format of deviation analysis, but it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (blueprintId and customerOrgId).

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving implementation progress and performance metrics for a blueprint, including predicted targets, actual measurements, deviation analysis, and implementation state. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the dependency on sync_implementation_state for the state portion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters like get_implementation_plan.

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 includes a usage statement: 'Use this to check how an implementation is tracking against the plan.' It provides context but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the siblings.

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