get_render_progress

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that errors are reported with license_error singled out, output files on disk are included, background-render process state and log tail are surfaced, and done means there is nothing left to wait for. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond a simple 'get progress' statement.

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 dense but well organized, leading with purpose, then accepted inputs, then what is reported, then parameter documentation. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes information the schema and annotations do not provide.

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 there is no output schema, the description does well to explain the categories of returned information: errors, output files, process state, and log tail. It also defines the done flag. It could be slightly more complete by naming the exact returned fields or explaining whether the call blocks, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 only says node_path is a string, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: node_path is described as 'the node given to start_render,' and the body clarifies which render node types are valid. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though exact path formatting could be more explicit.

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 specific resource and action: it reports the progress of a render or write started with start_render. It also narrows scope by defining which node types are accepted, including LOP usdrender_rop/Karma, SOP ROP, and File Cache nodes. This clearly distinguishes it from generic progress or status 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?

The description gives clear usage context by tying the tool to start_render and stating accepted node types, including that /out ROPs are not the only valid inputs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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