get_note_task_progress

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

No annotations provided, yet description fully discloses: async lifecycle (status transitions to success/failed), return value structure (note_id on success, error_msg on failure), operational constraints (polling interval 10-30s, ~3min duration), and auth requirements (note.content.read scope).

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 covers complete workflow (trigger, input source, polling pattern, output values), sentence 3 provides timing guidance and auth scope. Every clause 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?

Despite absent output schema, description compensates by detailing return values (status, note_id, error_msg), terminal conditions, auth scope, and operational timing. Fully sufficient for an async polling tool.

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?

While schema has 100% coverage describing task_id, description adds critical semantic linkage by specifying this ID comes from save_note's return value, establishing the tool-chain relationship that pure schema cannot convey.

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?

Specific verb '查询' (query) + resource '笔记任务的处理进度' (note task processing progress). Clearly distinguishes from sibling get_note (which retrieves actual note content) by explicitly targeting async task polling rather than final note data.

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?

Comprehensive usage context: specifies exact trigger condition (link note creation via save_note), prerequisite parameter source (save_note returned task_id), terminal states (success/failed), sibling relationship (save_note), and exact workflow (poll until status change).

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