list_task_progress

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sort order (newest first) and the data model rationale (time-series entries, not a task field), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or read-only safety profile for an unbounded history endpoint.

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, front-loaded with the action and ordering, followed by a rationale sentence that genuinely earns its place by explaining why this tool exists separately from update_task.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent and ordering but leaves the return shape and pagination/limit behavior unspecified, which matters for a potentially long history list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so projectId and taskId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: lists the progress (seguimiento/follow-up) history for a task, newest first. That clearly separates it from the mutation siblings create_task_progress/update_task_progress, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 note that task progress is a time-series and that update_task rejects PercentComplete implies when this tool is needed (reading history rather than writing a single field), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance or mention of prerequisites such as whether the task must exist.

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