lark_chat_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the lifecycle: first step opens, subsequent appends, done closes. It also mentions stream_id to avoid duplicate cards and reset behavior. However, it does not cover prerequisites or side effects.

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 sentence that delivers key points upfront. It is efficient with no wasted words, though slightly informal. It earns a high score for being concise yet informative.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use case and lifecycle. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or expected input formats. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact in the flow (e.g., stream_id prevents duplicate cards, reset closes old progress). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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: to report progress step by step when modifying code. It explains the behavior: first step opens a streaming card, subsequent steps append, and done=true closes. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the context implies it is for progress updates in a chat environment.

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 gives a context ('when changing code') for usage but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools are not compared, so an agent might not know when to choose this over others like lark_chat_session.

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