tpb_get

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

With no annotations, the description must itself convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'structured status' hints at the return format. However, there is no disclosure about failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the slug does not exist) or whether the tool has side effects, so transparency is incomplete.

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 gets straight to the point. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 is simple, and an output schema exists to clarify return values. However, the description lacks any usage context (e.g., when to call this vs. tpb_list) and does not mention potential error cases. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that an agent might need to guess.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'slug' parameter. The parameter is self-explanatory as an identifier, but the tool description provides zero guidance on how to obtain or format the slug, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 'Get structured status for a single progress bar,' using a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('progress bar'), and a scope ('single'). This distinguishes it from siblings like tpb_list (which likely returns multiple bars) and tpb_create/tpb_update (which modify).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention how it relates to tpb_list, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a slug from a prior creation call. The tool's purpose is implied but never explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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