evaluate_module_progress

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. 'Evaluates' and 'analyzing' imply a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not state whether it modifies anything, what output it returns, or any limitations. It provides minimal behavioral context but not a complete picture.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and method. There is no redundant information or filler, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear scope.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not describe expected return values, interpretation of progress results, or possible failure modes. It also lacks any usage differentiation, so an agent may not have enough information to confidently select and invoke the tool. The description would be adequate if paired with richer output documentation, but here it remains incomplete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description reinforces the relationship between source code (projectPath) and objectives (moduleObjectives) but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 evaluates a module's development progress by comparing source code against main objectives. It identifies the specific verb, resource, and method, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding track_progress sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like track_progress or analyze_code_quality. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the basic purpose, so an agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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