progress_tracker

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it says only that progress is tracked and time is estimated. It fails to mention that start/update/complete/clear mutate internal state, that updates are incremental, or how estimates are calculated beyond the schema hint on aiEstimate.

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 one-sentence description is tight and front-loaded, with no filler. It is appropriately concise but so short that it sacrifices informative content, though that tradeoff is accounted for in other dimensions.

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 multi-action stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the action lifecycle, how taskName scopes state, what 'get' returns, or what 'clear' resets. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer usage from enum names.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates poorly: it adds context for progress and aiEstimate but says nothing about the required action enum semantics or what taskName identifies. The action parameter with five enum values is left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a stateful tool.

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 states a clear verb ('track') and resource ('multi-step task progress') and adds the differentiator of estimated time remaining. It separates the tool from its browser-automation siblings, though it does not mention the action state machine or specific operations.

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 alternatives, nor any conditionals like 'use start before update' or 'use get to retrieve current progress'. The description gives a general purpose but no practical direction for the agent on selecting or sequencing calls.

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