get_render_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it lists what is reported (node errors with license_error singled out, output files on disk, and for background renders the process state and log tail) and defines the terminal condition ('done is true when there is nothing left to wait for'). This is the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to poll and interpret the result.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the args section is separated cleanly. The middle paragraph is dense but each claim (accepted node types, error handling, log tail, done semantics) earns its place; slightly verbose but not padded.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by narrating the return payload in prose: errors, output files, background process state, log tail, and the done flag. An agent can call and interpret this without further documentation.

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 0% and the schema only carries a title of 'Node Path', so the description must compensate. It does so by tying the argument to prior state: node_path is 'the node given to start_render', telling the agent the value must match the launch call. It still omits any format/path syntax detail, so it is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reports progress of a render or write begun with start_render. It also scopes what counts as a valid subject (LOP usdrender_rop/Karma LOP, SOP ROP, File Cache, not just /out ROPs), which cleanly separates it from render_viewport, render_node_network, and get_cook_status.

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 phrase 'started with start_render' gives a clear triggering condition: call this after launching a render via start_render. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative progress/status tools (e.g. get_cook_status), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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