get_job_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), error conditions (e.g., if no job is running), or performance characteristics (e.g., real-time updates). This leaves significant gaps for a tool in a machine control context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current job progress') and lists specific metrics without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool with no parameters.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., error handling, real-time nature) that would be helpful in a machine control environment. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary detail.

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 with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('current job progress'), and lists the metrics returned (lines sent, elapsed time, % complete). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_machine_state' or 'get_workflow_state' by focusing on job-specific progress metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name these 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?

The description implies usage during an active job to monitor progress, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_state' or prerequisites (e.g., requires a running job). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives.

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