notify_session_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the prerequisite conditions (AFK mode active), indicates immediate return behavior ('Returns immediately'), and explains how different categories should be used. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like network errors or client response handling.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and prerequisites, second describes return behavior, third provides category usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information not found elsewhere.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness by covering prerequisites, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but this is reasonable given the tool's complexity level.

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 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning category usage guidelines which partially overlap with the enum description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 the specific action ('Sends a progress update') and target ('to the connected mobile client'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_afk_status or get_user_decision that perform different functions. It goes beyond restating the name by specifying the communication context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Only call this when AFK mode is active (afkMode: true and clientConnected: true)') and provides detailed guidance on category usage ('Use category 'milestone' for significant steps, 'error' for failures, 'info' for routine updates'), offering clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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