get_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add the key behavior of returning null if no progress exists. However, it doesn't disclose other potential behaviors like error responses for invalid task IDs or read-only guarantees, though 'Fetch' implies no side effects.

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, well-structured sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word adds value, including the null-return behavior, making it concise and readable.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is fairly complete: it states what is fetched and the null behavior. It doesn't specify the return structure or error handling for non-existent tasks, but for a simple fetch tool it's adequate.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions and covers 0% of semantics, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a task', which adds little beyond the parameter name 'taskId' and doesn't explain the format or source of the ID.

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 tool fetches a progress snapshot and history for a task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task and update_progress by focusing on progress data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using get_task for task details or that update_progress is for modifying progress, so the description lacks explicit usage context.

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