get_project_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the parameter behavior is explained. It does not disclose error conditions, whether anything is computed or cached, or any limitations, so it 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?

Two sentences convey both the core function and the parameter behavior; the action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. There is no redundant restatement of schema fields or annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It could be slightly more complete by orienting the agent against sibling progress/status tools, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning; it explains that project_name is optional and toggles between detailed single-project progress and an aggregate summary. This fully compensates for the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('progress metrics for a project or all projects'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_project_status or get_project_context, which is why not a 5.

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?

Provides clear invocation guidance for the optional project_name parameter: including it returns detailed progress, omitting it returns a summary across all projects. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as get_project_status or get_activity_report.

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