progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it is cheap, never blocks, and is non-essential to task execution. It does not state error behavior for an invalid session id or whether the snapshot is live or cached.

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?

Three short sentences, content listed first and the usage caveat plus cost note after. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described further, and the one required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around stale/error behavior.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Session id returned by open", so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the session parameter, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 names the resource precisely — plan, context usage, session title, slash commands — so an agent knows it retrieves execution progress for a session. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like status or output, which read as similar diagnostic tools.

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?

"Not needed to run a task; call it only when you want to know" gives a clear when-not-to-use rule, which is unusual and valuable. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (status/output) for agents that need diagnostics.

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