Execute extended tasks with real-time progress tracking by specifying duration and step count for transparent operation monitoring.
Demonstrates a long running operation with progress updates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | Duration of the operation in seconds | |
| steps | No | Number of steps in the operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'long running operation' and 'progress updates', which hints at asynchronous behavior and status reporting, but doesn't specify timeout expectations, cancellation support, error handling, or what 'progress updates' actually entail. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool explicitly about long-running operations.
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 directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.
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 tool about long-running operations with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the operation actually does, what progress updates look like, how results are returned, or any error conditions. The agent lacks critical context needed to properly use this tool.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (duration and steps). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 the tool 'demonstrates a long running operation with progress updates', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource or domain it operates on. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'long running' and 'progress updates', but doesn't specify what exactly is being operated on or demonstrated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.