get_law_progress

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states return format (JSON string) and error handling (Chinese error messages). It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 concise docstring with Args, Returns, Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Returns section may be redundant given an output schema exists, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 with one parameter and an output schema. The description adequately conveys the basic functionality but lacks additional context about '未議決進度' (pending progress) or how it fits relative to sibling tools.

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% for the single parameter law_id. The description repeats the schema's description without adding new meaning, so baseline score of 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 it retrieves unresolved progress for a specific law using the verb '取得' (get) and resource '未議決進度列表' (pending progress list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_law or get_law_bills by focusing on 'progress.'

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the required parameter law_id with an example but does not provide context for when to choose this over related law tools.

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