Report Progress

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 the important non-obvious behavior that the call resets a stale-task watchdog. It says nothing about how often to call, whether progress overwrites or appends, or what happens if the task is already completed or cancelled.

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?

Two compact clauses with the heartbeat semantics front-loaded right after the purpose. No filler; the parenthetical is slightly awkward but 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?

For a simple two-param tool with no output schema, purpose plus heartbeat semantics is the essential core. Missing cadence guidance and the undocumented taskId leave real gaps for what is meant to be a periodic keepalive call.

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 only 50%: progress is documented in the schema while taskId is undocumented in both places, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. With a coverage gap, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (report task progress) and adds the key framing that it acts as a heartbeat. It is not explicitly contrasted with siblings like save_checkpoint or get_task_status, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 watchdog sentence implies when to call (periodically, to avoid being marked stale), but there is no explicit when-not, no suggested cadence, and no routing away from save_checkpoint or report_interruption, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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