jev_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 the key side effect for done:true (Figma redrawn, changelog cleared), but does not explain what happens when done:false or the nature of the progress report itself (e.g., whether it persists state or just displays text). Partial transparency, not complete.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and context; the second adds the critical done:true behavior and consequences. Information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main flow but leaves 'text' semantics and the done:false behavior unexplained. An agent can call it correctly for the completion case, but may be unsure what to pass for intermediate steps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives clear semantics for 'done' (true means all items fixed) and the overall action implies 'text' is the step content, but it never explicitly describes what text should contain or how it is displayed. One of two parameters is adequately explained.

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 action ('report a step') and target ('designer's Figma panel') with a clear trigger context ('During a Fine-tune'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by its progress-reporting role, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('During a Fine-tune') and a specific condition for done:true ('when every item is fixed'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over status/sync tools.

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