get_reading_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does say this is a getter and what it returns, but it does not clarify whose books are 'currently being read', whether pagination or ordering applies, or what exactly 'page-level progress' means.

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, short sentence that states the action and the primary output. All parts are relevant, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter interface, the description is minimally sufficient, but it relies on the user/reader to infer important context like authentication scope, output shape, and page-level progress format. The absence of a scenario, ordering, or detail about the progress representation makes it adequate but not complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs are required. The description therefore does not need to document parameter semantics, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 what the tool returns: all books currently being read, along with their page-level progress. It does not fully differentiate itself among the many sibling get_* tools, though the phrase 'currently being read' gives meaningful contrast with history/stats tools.

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 guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as get_library_by_status, get_my_library, get_reading_stats, or get_my_reading_journal. The description implies the obvious use case but provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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