get_project_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the returned datasets, that entries are opt-in ('includeEntries true adds'), and that the default is false. It doesn't state access requirements or explicitly that the call is read-only, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary payload front-loaded and the optional flag handled second. Minor friction from the untranslated 'Seguimiento' and the clipped 'includeEntries true' phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, and it does identify the three top-level results plus the entry fields. An agent knows enough to call it and to decide on includeEntries; pagination or size expectations are the only omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out what the boolean actually unlocks (Seguimiento entries with ProjectProgressId, assessment, descriptions) — context the schema does not provide. projectId itself is only restated.

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 and resource ('Get the project progress report') and enumerates the payload (expected curve, baseline curve, follow-up history). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings create_project_progress/update_project_progress, which it implicitly complements.

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 clause 'for update_project_progress' ties the includeEntries option to a concrete downstream use, which is an effective when-to-use cue. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming a sibling read alternative, so it isn't a full 5.

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