demo4_check_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions return values and not side effects, safety, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with key output information. 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It covers purpose and returns, but omits details on error conditions, prerequisite state, and whether log entries are paginated.

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%, and the description adds meaning by specifying that taskId comes from 'demo4_start_pipeline', guiding the agent on data provenance. This goes beyond the basic schema description.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check', resource 'progress of a running pipeline task', and explicitly lists return values (step, percentage, log entries). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like demo4_start_pipeline and demo5_cancel_task.

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 usage context (after a pipeline is started) by referencing 'task ID from demo4_start_pipeline' but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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