get_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It does communicate that this is a read-only summary and lists the exact data points, but it does not mention data freshness, scope, or any side effects. For a getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It presents the key metrics in a compact parallel list and is exactly as concise as the content allows.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description supplies a useful summary of the return content. However, it omits any explanation of the q_type parameter, usage context relative to siblings, and potential caveats about the metrics. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 only parameter, q_type, has zero schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot determine what q_type values are valid or whether it filters by question type, mode, or something else. The default 'mcq' and title 'Q Type' give a weak hint, but the description itself adds no meaning.

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 identifies the resource ('progress') and the specific purpose ('learning overview'), and enumerates the concrete metrics returned: total answers, accuracy rate, practiced questions, and reviews due today. This distinguishes it from mutating siblings like reset_progress, though it could more explicitly contrast with get_readiness or get_topic_distribution.

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 to use this tool instead of related siblings such as get_readiness, get_topic_distribution, or reset_progress. The phrase 'learning overview' is an implicit hint at best; no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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