get_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists what data is retrieved, without mentioning read-only nature, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. It doesn't describe the output format or whether results are aggregated, which leaves the agent guessing about invocation behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and enumerates the key data categories. It is efficient, though a structured list might improve scannability.

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 tool has optional parameters, no output schema, and a monitoring role, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, output structure, or how the retrieved metrics relate to the broader system, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the 'hours' or 'bucket_minutes' parameters. Their meaning (e.g., time window, aggregation granularity) is entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer how to set them correctly.

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 retrieves specific progress metrics (bootstrap/GLM completion, ETA, throughput, queue health, crawl-run history). This is more specific than merely saying 'get progress' and distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like get_monitoring_status, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_monitoring_status or get_recent_changes. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternative selection is provided.

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