list_me_items_in_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP method/path, which repeats the read-only nature rather than disclosing additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or scoping details.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler content. The endpoint line provides concrete routing information, but the first line is largely a paraphrase of the tool name and could have been more informative.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any explanation of what 'items-in-progress' means or how it relates to similar sibling endpoints, leaving potential ambiguity for an agent selecting between list_me_progress and this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and no such detail is expected.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('items-in-progress'), and the HTTP path clarifies the exact endpoint. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_me_progress or list_me_listening_sessions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related list_me_* endpoints, when it should be preferred, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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