get_import_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('report') but does not specify side effects, idempotency, or response details. The existence of an output schema (not fully shown) mitigates this somewhat, but the description alone is minimal.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is well-structured for quick comprehension, though it is somewhat terse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, output schema present), the description is largely complete. However, it could note that the progress token is obtained from import functions, though the schema already covers this. The description does not need to explain return values as the output schema exists.

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% with a single parameter that has a detailed description. The tool description adds the phrase 'given its progress token,' which reinforces but does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('report'), the resource ('current status of a running import'), and the mechanism ('given its progress token'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'abort_import' (which aborts) and 'audit_import_quality' (which audits quality).

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 when a progress token is available, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to check status vs. abort or audit. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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