progress_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only monitoring operation but omits details such as whether the user needs special privileges, whether only currently running operations are shown, or what progress metrics (e.g., percentages, command type) are returned.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the exact operation types without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also does not clarify the role of database_name, leaving the agent to infer whether the report is global or filtered and what the result structure looks like.

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 one optional parameter, database_name, but the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the parameter name itself suggests, failing to explain how this parameter affects the progress report.

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 function with a specific verb ('Monitor') and resource ('progress of VACUUM, ANALYZE, CLUSTER, and CREATE INDEX operations'). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like autovacuum_advisor or transaction_monitor.

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 when to use the tool (when monitoring maintenance operation progress), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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