get_progressive_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: stale results are withheld, which is valuable beyond schema. But it omits whether the call is read-only, whether it blocks or polls, what a pending vs completed status looks like, or any rate/refresh guidance.

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?

Single compact sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the behavioral caveat. No wasted words. Slightly terse given how much it leaves unsaid, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the description should still cover when to poll and how request_id is obtained given 0% schema coverage. As a status-polling tool in a dense sibling family with no annotations, it leaves too much unspecified for reliable invocation.

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% for the single required parameter 'request_id', so the description should compensate but does not mention it at all. With only one parameter and no enum, the baseline is moderate; the description leaves the identity of the request_id (which start call returns it) entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('progressive analysis status') plus a notable behavior ('withholding stale results'). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_analysis, get_analysis_job, or get_progressive_analysis's natural counterpart cancel_progressive_analysis; it sits in a crowded family of polling/status tools without clarifying its niche.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot infer whether to call this instead of get_analysis_metrics or get_analysis_job, nor when to escalate to start_progressive_analysis. No prerequisites or timing guidance (e.g., poll after start) are provided.

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